Since the beginning of time companies have been control freaks. For most of the 20th century companies held on to information and doled it out on a “as needed basis”. According to some; corporations leadership styles have started to change. As this chart suggests corporations are beginning to loosen the reigns on information.
I’m not sure I agree. I believe we’ve made great progress. The old “Retain” model is a dying breed. Information is too important for companies to hoard and deliver on an as needed basis.
Have corporations embraced the “Encourage” model? I don’t think we’re there yet. A small number of companies have embraced the “Encourage” model, but they are early adopters. Companies are control freaks! They still hoard information and make hierarchical decisions on who get’s what. I don’t think we are close either. Companies have just begun to “Share the information.
This Tweet by an Unknown Twitterer says it all:
“Why is it companies trust us with a phone, but don’t trust us with Twitter or Facebook.”
Companies are control freaks, and like all control freaks, if they can’t control it, they don’t like. Things are changing, but not that fast.
Is your company a control freak?
Loading ...
1
Have you seen the “documentary” titled, The Corporation? I use it in class. It's very anti corporation, but makes interesting points by exploring how the corporation is like an individual, a crazed individual in their argument, but I think like an individual, a corporation seeks integrity… if leadership is the brain (questionable at times), then it can be very disconcerting if the left hand doesn't know that the right hand is doing.
About information and power. In another class I teach I talk about “open book” management. What's funny is we always think about information and power as flowing from top down. What your post points to is that with Facebook and Twitter, not only can information and power be now disseminated and held at any level within the company, but also “created” at any level. That new information is power and can create a lot of headache for top brass and the bottom line. Just think about how much Yahoo and Google have impacted the hiring of top talent because of negative messages on boards about individual companies.
Twitter and FB are security issues to be sure, and a PR problem, but also at a deeper level give a company a sort of multiple personality disorder, or multiple reality. If the CEO says one thing, and an employee say's another on Twitter, which is true? What about when they both could be true.
Jim, what I find even more interesting is that your questions here point to I think a deeper revolution that's about to happen…
It's my contention that in 20-50 years corporations as we know them will cease to exist. Remember the old school way of battle, line up the cannon fodder and let them go at it with the generals on the hill giving commands… it worked for thousands of years because people accepted it as reality. Now think about battle… it's more individual, personal, door to door. Not one solider dies alone anymore, we feel it painfully as a nation… we count the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and think about the Vietnam memorial- every solider has his name etched in stone for eternity.
Right or wrong we've become a national of individuals, some would say more conscious individuals, others might say more selfish. Both are probably true, but think about what that means for corporations in the future… who would want to give themselves to someone else's dream? To someone else's profit? Those line level grunts? Are they there by choice or by circumstance? It President Obama emancipates employees by making health care universal… how does that change the game?
What takes its place is what I spend my time thinking about…
So far I come up with family/group collectives. Family- Imagine if Match.com and the company you worked for merged. Your access to a larger life was dictated/granted by your choice in who you worked for… access to support, ability to have a wife and family… Or collectives- Small individual units/ teams if you will that contract out… ready to plug and play modules of people who bargain their employment collectively… think of a group of engineers, with a supervisor of their choosing, etc.
Good things to think about.
Keep up the good work!
Comment by Matt — April 15, 2009 @ 10:40 am
2
Matt, I think that is a very interesting point. If the power of the collective could be maintained as well as the value of the “asset” could be allocated accordingly, the definition of a corporation could be changed
Interesting perspective.
Thanks for the view.
Comment by Keenan — April 15, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
3
Matt, I think that is a very interesting point. If the power of the collective could be maintained as well as the value of the “asset” could be allocated accordingly, the definition of a corporation could be changed
Interesting perspective.
Thanks for the view.
Comment by Keenan — April 16, 2009 @ 4:53 am