A Response to "The Quest for Empowering Organizations"
Author(s): David K. Hurst
Source: Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1995), pp. 676-679
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635031
Accessed: 24/09/2010 11:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=informs.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Organization Science.
http://www.jstor.org
DAVID K. HURST
Crossroads
ture the businessworld and to share rapidlydiminishing resourceswithoutthe high social costs of aggressive
competition.It is also the optimalmeans and chanceof
assuringworld peace and a worldwidecommunityof
interactingcooperativenations composed of mentally
healthy citizens: a high and difficult goal indeed, but
an entirelynecessaryone.
Endnotes
'AnthropologistWoodburn(1982)dividedthe people still viewed as
into two categories:those who lived (at
foragers(hunter-gatherers)
system,and
the time they were studied)by an "immediate-return"
system.Only six, small,
others who followedsome "delayed-return"
geographicallydistant groups remained as immediate-returnforagers. The least complex of systems involvespeople hunting and
gatheringand consumingthe foods obtainedthe same day or casually over the next few days. Thus they receive an immediatereturn
system,
for their labor.All other groupslived by a "delayed-return"
involvingownershipof some privateproperty(pit traps, fish weirs,
and such), yielding a delayed return for labor (Man 17, 431-435).
This systemimpliedbindingcommitmentsand inequalitiesbetween
people; accordinglyI arguethat these groupsshouldnot be categorized as foragers,as they are in transitionto some more structured
of true
systemwhichis incompatiblewith the essentialegalitarianism
foragers.For this reason,when I writeof foragers,I referonlyto the
system.
six foragingpeoples who followthe immediate-return
2To an anthropologist,the traditionalfunctionpositionis that societies should be viewed as systemswith structureswithin which all
majorsocial patternsare interrelatedand operate to maintainthe
integrationof the social system. The concept of functionalismhas
been little used in recent years, because it is difficultto apply to
large, complexsocieties in which conflict and change appearto be
normalconditions,and because the functionalistapproachprovides
A
for
Response
to
scientificrationalizationfor maintenanceof the status quo. Maintenance of the status quo is not always,or by definition,a bad thing.
Functionalistconcepts are useful tools for analyzinglittle or only
slowly changingsystems, such as that of foragers.When a social
systemis basedwhollyon behaviors,interactions,and relationships,
these phenomenaare both functionaland structuralelementsof the
system.
3In writingof the mutualdependencesystemof foragers,Ehin does
not make it entirelyclear that this model was developedby me. I
trust I may be forgivenfor makingthis point clearer.The reader is
reminded that this model was developed in terms of the social
(imchimpanzeesand undisturbed
organizationof both undisturbed
mediate-return)foragers.Had I intendedit to applyonly to human
foragers,reciprocitywould have been included as a structuraland
functionalprinciple.Chimpanzees,however,do not practice organized reciprocity.
References
Hurst,David K. (1984),"Of Boxes, Bubbles,and EffectiveManagement,"HarvardBusinessReview,62, 3 (May-June),78-88.
Kent,Susan(1993),"Sharingin an EgalitarianKalahariCommunity,"
Man, 28, 3, 479-514.
Mackal,P. K. (1979), PsychologicalTheoriesof Aggression,Amsterdam,The Netherlands:North-HollandPublishing.
Service,E. R. (1966), The Hunters,EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 22-23.
Shils, E. (1965),"Charisma,Orderand Status,"AmericanSociological Review,30, 199-213.
Wrangham,R. W. (1982),"Mutualism,Kinshipand SocialEvolution,"
in King'sCollege SociobiologyGroup(Ed.), CurrentProblemsin
Sociobiology,Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
269-289.
"The
Quest
Empowering Organizations"
David K. Hurst
232 ColchesterDrive, Oakville, Ontario, Canada L6J 5S5
Opening Comments
The social dynamicsof hunter/gatherer societies are
of interest to modern managers for several reasons:
The hunter/gatherer organizationalstructurewas one
of the most successful social adaptationsever developed, and mankindprobablylived successfullyin this
way for millionsof years. In a forthcomingbook (Hurst
676
1995), I argue that it was the originallearningorganization, the cradle of the creative process we call
"learning."The hunting/foragingway of life was characterizedby an absence of technology,and as a result
one can see with great claritythe basic social dynamics
that hold an informalorganizationtogether.
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI.
6, No. 6, November-December1995
DAVID K. HURST
Crossroads
rarelyin large, modernorganizations.They are usually
The hunting/foragingorganizationexhibitsmany of
operating in so-called "K-selection" environments
the features that managersare currentlytryingto introduce into our modernorganizationalstructures:ab- where competitive efficiency demands specialization;
sence of hierarchy,open communication,mutualtrust, larger scale, complex operations; and hierarchical
structures (hierarchical in a systems sense (Simon
and individual empowerment. If managers want to
reinventor renew existingagonicsystems(performance 1969)):
organizations),the introductionof hedonic dynamicsis
K-strategists,on the other hand, are organizationsthat are
essential. Toynbee (1947) has suggested that similar
structuredto competesuccessfullyin denselysettled environprocesses are needed to renew civilizationsas a whole.
ments... . [They] generally expand more slowly into new
Thus I agree completelywith CharlesEhin'ssuggesresourcespacesthan r-strategistsbecausethe structuresgenerating competitiveefficiencyfrequentlypreclude the rapid
tion that we need to studythese societies more closely
adjustmentsnecessary to capture first-mover advantages.
and that managerscan use them as a guide to build
Competitionon the basisof efficiencygenerallyinvolveshigher
organizationswhich empowerpeople. The question is
levels of investmentin plant and equipmentand more elabo"how?"It is surely not just a question of managersof
rate organizationalstructures(Brittain and Freeman 1980,
good will "implementing"such organizations.
pp. 311-312).
The Importance of Context
One of the most interestingfeatures of a hunter/forager band is that it appearsto be self-organizingwithin
the appropriatecontext. The desirable behaviors of
individualsare sustained provided several conditions
are present in the environment.These conditionsseem
to resemble those found in what some ecologists have
called "r-selection" environments (MacArthur and
Wilson 1967):these are environmentswith a great deal
of volatility and unpredictability,but whose carrying
capacityis far higher than that of the existingpopulation. There is little competition,and the environment
selects for small-scaleorganizationswith high natural
growthrates.
Hunters/foragers would appear to be r-strategists
(whether one talks of r-strategistsor r-selection environmentsdepends upon one's view of the directionof
cause and effect):
Pure r-strategists... are organizationsthat move quicklyto
exploit resourcesas they first become available.Their structure makesthem relativelyinexpensiveto set up; that is, they
concentrate on activities that require low levels of capital
investmentand simplestructures.They are called r-strategists
because they trade on speed of expansion. Their success
dependsheavilyon first-moveradvantages,whichmakesthem
high-riskand high payofforganizationswhichgain maximally
from temporarilyrich environments.Such organizationspersist only where the pattern of resourceavailabilityis highly
uncertainand resourcesare dispersedover time and space.
Where critical resources are availablewith any certainty,
exploitivestrategieswill usuallyfail when facedwith organizations emphasizingcompetitiveefficiency.Thus industriesthat
are unchangingshould not have r-strategists(Brittain and
Freeman1980,pp. 311-312).
The last three sentences of this quote give us several
clues as to why hunter/forager dynamicsare found so
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOl.
These comments do not appear to apply to a few,
rare organizationssuch as W. L. Gore and Associates,
which Ehin cites. The focus of these organizationson
advanced technology and their policy of abandoning
productsbefore they become commodities(i.e., enter
K-selection environments) allows them to remain
perennial"hunters,"with social dynamicsto match(for
a descriptionof their lattice organization,see Shipper
and Manz (1992)). Similarcultures are found in other
high-techenterprises,but this strategyis open to relatively few organizationsand even then may not be
viablewithinthem indefinitely.The evidence is that all
growing business organizations experience increasing
difficultyin maintainingthese dynamics as they age
and as the marketsfor their products mature (Hurst
1995). The recent, radical changes at Compaq Computer-from an r-strategist'sfocus on features and
technology to a K-strategist'semphasis on price and
manufacturingefficiency-illustrate how suddenlythis
can happen, even in high-techenvironments(Business
Week, November 2, 1992, pp. 146-151). Thus, managers of most establishedorganizationswishingto empower their people (i.e., introduce hunting/foraging
social dynamics)are faced with a conundrum:they
need such dynamicsto create a learningorganization,
but the competitive, performance-orientedenvironment and their large scale organizationmay preclude
the hedonic dynamicsfrom emerging.As a result, the
managersare constrained:that is, they are unable to
behave as instrumentallyrationalactors (Pfeffer 1982)
in the introductionof the organizationaldynamicsrequiredfor renewal.
The Question Isn't "Why?"but "How?"
Although managersmay be constrained,they are not
powerless. Some managers succeed in breaking con-
6, No. 6, November-December1995
677
DAVID K. HURST
Crossroads
straints by creating crises for the entire system. The
role of Jack Welch in shakingGE out of its lethargyis
a well-knownexample(Tichyand Sherman1993).In a
recent article (Zimmermanand Hurst 1993), Brenda
Zimmermanand I have suggested that this process is
analogous to the action required to renew complex
ecosystemssuch as forests;they have to be burned.We
cited the interestingexample of the shrubcommunity
knownin the AmericanSouthwestas chapparal,which
is fire-dependentfor its growthand survival.We suggested that perhaps managers can be rational (i.e.,
appeal to a logic) at a metalevel,which recognizesthe
presence of contexts that constrainaction but, nevertheless, allows them to act on those contexts to break
the constraints.(For a popular treatment of this see
"Times Are Good? Create a Crisis,"Fortune,June 28,
1993,pp. 123-128.)
While externalevents are often necessaryto precipitate a crisis in an organization(Hurst 1995), some
organizationsmay have succeeded in institutionalizing
processes which "burn the forest"in a systemicway.
3M, for example,has long insistedthat 25% or more of
sales from each of its 42 divisionscome from products
developed within the past five years (see "Mastersof
Innovation:How 3M Keeps Its New ProductsComing,"
bers and physicaldispersionof people) hampersfaceto-face communication,or dialogue as it has come to
be called. (See the entire issue of Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1993.)
It is well knownthat when humanorganizations(and
individuals) are faced with true novelty-situations
where one does not know the questions,let alone the
answers-communication with the broadestbandwidth
is essential to the reductionof equivocality(Daft and
Lengel 1986). One of the most importantdifferences
between hedonic and agonic organizationsis that they
use differentmedia for communication,largelydue to
their different scales. Although some observers have
suggested that electronic communicationscan help
recreate a more intimate"social reality"in large organizations,the evidence so far is that such technology
cannot of itself break the hierarchicalcontext. Indeed,
as a tool in the hands of conventionalmanagers,it can
be made to serve the demandsof hierarchyeven more
effectively(Nohriaand Eccles 1992).
A different approach to the problem of scale is
suggestedby the concept of fractalstructuresin human
organizations(Zimmermanand Hurst 1993).These are
structureswhere patterns are similar across several
scales. A good exampleof this is the hologram,where
everyfragment,no matterhow small, containswithin it
Business Week, April 10, 1989, pp. 58-63). This prevents managers from "harvesting"mature products a representationof the whole image. Fractalstructures
without givingthoughtto the future.
(Mandelbrot1983) are characteristicof many natural
At 3M managerswork hard to keep its units small objectsand systemswhichexhibitself-similarityof form
and reduce territorialityby insistingthat the technol- (and hence process) across multiple scales. Human
ogy which individualunits develop belongs to the cor- organizationswith fractal characteristicswould show
poration as a whole. Parallelcareer laddersfor scien- similardynamicsacrossa wide range of scale: individutists and managers mitigate the effects of hierarchy. als, dyads,teams etc. Hunter/foragerorganizationsare
This allows3M to recognizesuccessin areasother than fractalin the sense that flexibilityexists at every level:
administration.Similarly, the Bushman hunter/for. individualsare self-directedand multi-skilled.
agers of the Kalahariawardthe responsibilityfor the
. the dyadicrelationshipbetween pairs of individudistributionof meat from the hunt to the makerof the
als is one of mutualdependence.
arrow that killed the animal, not the to hunter who
. groupsare open andunrestrictive;people can come
shot it (Yellen 1990). This removes anxiety over the
and go from them with minimalrestrictions.
divisionof the surplusmeat and preventshuntersfrom
. territoriesare open and undefended,so that neighachievinghigh status and hierarchicalpower by virtue bouringgroupscan range over them.
of their hunting prowess. At 3M such techniques, in
. the social vision is of an egalitariansociety which
combinationwith their unique culture, seem to have legitimates the dynamicsat every level of the fractal
kept the hunter/forager dynamicsalive in the com- organization.
pany.
It is this flexibilityand openness that accountfor the
sensitivityof the hunter/forager bands to the external
environmentand for their abilityto act as communities
Breaking the Scale
of practice(Seely Brownand Duguid 1991)to promote
One of the most importantcontextualfactors in both learning.
the creation and maintenanceof hedonic dynamicsin
BrendaZimmermanand I have proposed that firms
an organizationis scale. The criticalfactorseems to be which either face complex, dynamic environmentsor
the degree to which size (which affects both the num- wish to renew themselvescan create a fractalstructure
678
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/Vol.
6, No. 6, November-December1995
DAVID K. HURST
Crossroads
by pushingprocesses of inquiry"down"into the formal
organization, weaving temporary "horizontal" task
forces acrossthe verticalhierarchy.This process allows
the organizationto "zoom"inon finer and finer details
of its operations, while involving people closer and
closer to the front line in small-scalereplicationsof
processes that occur higher in the structure. These
horizontaltask forces are learningorganizationswhich
should exhibit hedonic dynamicsand, in that process,
act as communitiesof practice.They have to be seen as
temporaryorganizations,however,either changingthe
vertically organized routines of the organizationor
dissolving.
Thus, this perspectivesuggeststhat, in modernorganizations, hunting/foraging dynamicswill always be
integral to the change process. As such, they will
alwaysbe ephemeral phenomena (Lanzara1983), appearing in response to the turbulence of crises and
opportunities,but disappearingas soon as the environment becomes stable. Their ephemeralnature ensures
that they will be incapableof being institutionalizedin
a permanentstructure.
Thus, the association between performance and
learning in mature organizationswill alwaysbe a figure-ground relationship. The hedonic learning processes and hunter/forager dynamics provide the
ground:the fluid, nurturingcontext out of which the
value-addingperformanceroutinesmust emerge. And,
once they have served their purpose and their time,
they must return to this matrix to be renewed. As
CharlesEhin suggests,to developmore egalitarianand
effective organizationswe do not have to go forwardto
some BraveNew Age. We have only to rememberwhat
we have alwaysknown.
References
Brittain, J. W. and J. H. Freeman (1980), "Organizational Proliferation and Density Dependent Selection," in J. R. Kimberly, R. H.
Miles and Associates, The OrganizationalLife Cycle, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOl.
Chance,M. R. A. (Ed.) (1988), SocialFabricsof theMind,Hillsdale,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Daft, R. L. and R. H. Lengel (1986), "OrganizingInformation
Requirements,MediaRichnessand StructuralDesign,"ManagementScience,32, 5, 554-571.
Emery,F. E. and E. L. Trist,"The CausalTextureof Organizational
Environments,"
HumanRelations,20, 199-237.
Hurst, D. K. (1991), "CautionaryTales From the Kalahari:How
HuntersBecame Herders,"Academyof Management
Executives,
3, 74-86.
__
(1995),Crisis& Renewal:Meetingthe Challengeof Organizational
Change,Boston, MA:HarvardBusinessSchool Press.
Lanzara,G. F. (1983),"EphemeralOrganizationsin ExtremeEnvironments:Emergence,Strategy,Extinction,"Journalof ManagementStudies,20, 1, 71-95.
Lee, R. B. and DeVore, I. (Eds.) (1968),MantheHunter,New York:
Aldine.
MacArthur,R. H. and E. 0. Wilson (1967), The Theoryof Island
Biogeography,
Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Mandelbrot,B. (1983), The FractalGeometryof Nature,San Francisco, CA:W. H. Freeman.
Nohria, N. and R. G. Eccles (1992), Networksand Organizations,
Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchool Press.
Pfeffer,J. (1982),Organizations
and Organization
Theory,Marshfield,
MA: PitmanPublishingInc.
Power,M. (1991), TheEgalitarians-Humanand Chimpanzee,Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.
Seely Brown,J. and P. Duguid(1991),"Organizational
Learningand
Communities-of-Practice:
Towarda Unified View of Working,
Learning,and Innovation,"Organization
Science,2, 1, February.
Shipper,F. and C. C. Manz (1992), "An AlternativeRoad to Empowerment,"Organizational
Dynamics,Winter,48-61.
Simon,H. A. (1969), The Sciencesof theArtificial,Cambridge,MA:
The M.I.T.Press.
Tichy,N. M. and S. Sherman(1993),ControlYourDestinyor Someone
Else Will,New York:CurrencyDoubleday.
Toynbee,A. J. (1947), A Studyof History,Abridgementof Volumes
I-VI by D. C. Somervell,New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Zimmerman,B. J. and D. K Hurst (1993), "Breakingthe Boundaries:the FractalOrganization,"
Journalof Management
Inquiry,
2, 4, December,334-355.
6, No. 6, November-December 1995
679