Greenleaf on organizational traditions
Greenleaf spent a great deal of time writing about the flaws of traditional organizational structure. He believed that the typical hierarchical structure, most widely used by organizations even today, cannot carry the institution to the distinguished performance that it must attain. Unfortunately, too few people are convinced of the limitations this structure provides.
Even as people begin to see the limitations, tradition often gets in the way of permitting organizations from beginning anew. But where do these traditions come from? What are the models available in shaping the structure of an organization? Greenleaf provides two traditions from which we form our organizations:
The first of these organization traditions, and the most widely accepted, comes down from Moses. It is the hierarchical principle that places one person in charge as the lone chief atop a pyramidal structure. Nearly all institutions we know about - businesses, governments, armies, churches, universities - have been organized this way so long that it is rare for anyone to question the assumptions that underlie the model. We see no other course than to hold one person responsible. And so the natural reaction to a call for stronger leadership is to try to strengthen the control of the one person at the top. This reaction, in most cases, exacerbates rather than alleviates the problem.
The second tradition, of much more limited use, comes down from Roman times. It is the form where the principal leader is primus inter pares - first among equals. There is still a "first," a leader, but that leader is not the chief. The difference may appear to be subtle, but it is important that the primus constantly test and prove that leadership among a group of able peers. This principle is more difficult to find in practice, but it does exist in important places - with conspicuous success.
Even as people begin to see the limitations, tradition often gets in the way of permitting organizations from beginning anew. But where do these traditions come from? What are the models available in shaping the structure of an organization? Greenleaf provides two traditions from which we form our organizations:
The first of these organization traditions, and the most widely accepted, comes down from Moses. It is the hierarchical principle that places one person in charge as the lone chief atop a pyramidal structure. Nearly all institutions we know about - businesses, governments, armies, churches, universities - have been organized this way so long that it is rare for anyone to question the assumptions that underlie the model. We see no other course than to hold one person responsible. And so the natural reaction to a call for stronger leadership is to try to strengthen the control of the one person at the top. This reaction, in most cases, exacerbates rather than alleviates the problem.
The second tradition, of much more limited use, comes down from Roman times. It is the form where the principal leader is primus inter pares - first among equals. There is still a "first," a leader, but that leader is not the chief. The difference may appear to be subtle, but it is important that the primus constantly test and prove that leadership among a group of able peers. This principle is more difficult to find in practice, but it does exist in important places - with conspicuous success.
<< Home