Beyond Certainty (Harvard Business School Classics Translation Series · Masterpiece Series)

Author: Charles Handy
Translator: Xu Hua / Huang Yun
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-03-01
Features: "Knowledge Economy" and "Information Society" are currently more of a concept, a buzzword, and a "future tense." Handy's essays are much more approachable than those up of conceptual theories and statistics, making them more suitable for establishing a sense of the information society with us. "Beyond Uncertainty," who created the uncertainty? The information revolution. Although the author rarely uses terms like "information revolution" or "knowledge economy" throughout the book, the uncertainties people have faced since the 1980s are clearly caused by the information revolution. With his sharp insight and witty writing, the author showcases the immense impact of the information revolution on various aspects of the global economy, life, and cultural concepts, as well as the resulting trends in socioeconomic life. He also proposes strategies for people to adapt to this era's current.
Excerpt: The New Era of Positive Power
"The body is differentiating, the center cannot be maintained," is a frequently used catchy phrase, and it often happens. A few weeks ago, I was in Italy, where this enchanting country was busy preventing division. Italy no longer has a political core, and people use the term "ghosts in the ballot box" to describe its disappearance. If such a core exists, how many people would be willing to vote for it? There is no political core, but there is a massive management center. In Italy, everything requires a permit, and patience is needed to obtain it. Even the renowned Bologna University, which has been famous since 1300 AD, cannot offer new courses without approval from Rome. And if you want to get a permit to renovate your house, it will take years to go through a long chain of official approvals. And if you want to change this bureaucratic system, even just to propose new ideas, it's futile. Thus, a super has formed—a central authority that does nothing, yet possesses all legitimate power, but lacks a leader to actively operate it. This situation has led to unlimited "negative power" and rampant corruption. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not unique to Italy; negative power troubles every large institution. If you lack the power to make things work—positive power—you are almost certainly equipped with the power to stop them—negative power. "This is unfortunate, but the wrong has been done, and it has been accepted." As a result, vast central authorities, often plagued by bureaucracy, are often difficult to operate. Power comes from authority, but if this authority is not one that pursues change, creation, and innovation, then power can only come from negative power. Manipulation and corruption thrive in these places, after all, it is quite tempting to earn a salary without doing any work. All power corrupts, but negative power creates more subtle corruption. It is easy to propose solutions to this problem, but implementation is difficult. Streamline the central institutions, make them smaller but more efficient. It should play a leadership role rather than issue permits, focusing on "where to go?" rather than "what to do? How to do it?" If ABB can monitor 225,000 employees with just 120 people in Zurich, and Boots and Mars can achieve the same with less than 100 and 20 people, respectively, then large central institutions will soon be phased out. It seems that the small-center system can allow central institutions to focus on thinking without unnecessary monitoring, enabling superiors to delegate authority to lower units and external agencies. Where there is positive power, there is no need for external power to push it. The efficiency of small centers is based on the assumption that as long as you correctly grasp the big picture, lower-level departments will automatically adjust themselves. Even if lower-level departments sometimes make mistakes, the efficiency released by positive power energy will be much higher than the losses caused by those mistakes. Additionally, this approach is also more cost-effective, as the cost of trust is lower than the cost of issuing permits. The small-center system is based on the principle of trust, trusting others to perform their jobs well and trusting them to act in the organization's best interest. Of course, the principle of trust also means finding the right people at the beginning, providing proper training, and treating them well, understanding them, and maintaining regular communication with them. The selection, training, and communication of small centers must be carefully controlled—these are the three major software developments of this new type of organization. Staying in such a small center may give one a sense of loneliness. Once, a vice president of ABB told me, "All we can do is guard the middle group, with some comfort, watching them generally move in the right direction!" If some cows wander off, the organizational system will sound an alarm and send inspectors to bring them back. But if the middle group is moving along a reasonable path, let them go. This control system is agile and focused, but it controls the goals rather than the means, cares only about the results rather than the process. The tragedy of Italy lies in the fact that it has long been a typical example of a negative power culture, and no matter who leads, it is difficult to change this culture. In this culture, it is encouraged not to seek success but to avoid failure. Changing people's mindset is difficult, and where negative power dominates, positive power is always unpopular, and issuing permits is always easier than innovation. For us in other countries, the problem is simpler. Our central institutions are relatively small or shrinking, emphasizing individual responsibility, and I think we rarely say "no." As more people experience the benefits of building organizations based on positive power principles, this organizational approach will become more popular. In the past, we were often accustomed to designing and constructing organizations based on the idea of preventing people from making mistakes. Now, we want to transform organizations into institutions that help people develop positive diversity. The trendy appeal seems to be stronger than any theoretical persuasion. This time, fashion and theory are working hand in hand.