Easycratie Chapter 1

8/6/2019 Easycratie Chapter 1

1/9

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARYIn the organization models of the 20th century, the most powerful management tools

thinkable were hierarchy, power, control and a monopoly on knowledge. But in a time

when the information society has become such a dominant player, these tools have

lost much of their significance. Whether you like it or not, organizations are

increasingly being run from the bottom up, rather than top-down. We will need to

learn how to operate in a world where these new laws and opportunities dominate.

And this is exactly what easycracy facilitates. Easycracy has no respect for

existing organization structures. But thats not to say that its the equivalent of

anarchy. It is not a political pamphlet, its a way of working for both

individuals and organizations. Includingthe traditional manager.

The problemVirtually every problem in todays society is essentially one of bureaucracy. There

are enough individuals available to provide the solutions, but the successful

execution of these solutions is still being sabotaged by a stifling web of

bureaucracy: rules, protocols, procedures, hierarchies and a lack of collaboration.

The solutionEasycracy is a new way of working, organizing and collaborating in the 21st century

in compliance with the existing rules, but making smart use of the opportunities

everyone has easy access to thanks to information technology 2.0. Easycracy is

the best form of bureaucracy, and the least complicated. And the wonderful thing

about it is that you can put it into practice straight away. Whether youre a

department head, or a policymaking civil servant, a sole trader or a volunteer at

your local sports club. You dont have to wait till the next elections or the

upcoming management team meeting. Easycracy is a way of working.

HOW DOES THIS EASYCRACY THING WORK THEN?

Easycracy is an attempt to identify the best and easiest form of bureaucracy. In the last ten years,

society has transformed almost unnoticed into an information society. Technology is making it

increasingly possible for knowledge to be accessed easily and for people to connect with each other on

a massive scale. The combination of these two factors results in enormously powerful networks with

great potential being created everywhere. We're living in a world of rapid change. The combination of

freely accessible knowledge and connected collaborating individuals is so powerful that suddenly

opportunities for resolving major issues are omnipresent. In practice, this can lead to problems,

because the solutions ofered are often hindered by the bureaucracy within huge, inflexible

organizations.


2/9

We tend to do things in the old familiar way. We typically work with organization models that were

thought up in an era pre-dating the information society. An era that was characterized by inaccessible,

security-protected information. Knowledge is power' and hierarchical organization structures were the

logical result of this way of thinking. But now that information has become so accessible, these

traditional hierarchical organization structures have become a great deal less logical. And if it's true

that knowledge is power and who ever doubted that? then haven't we all become powerful, now

that we all have access to that knowledge?

It's not only the bureaucratic rules that are getting in the way of progress. At least as important are our

own deep-seated habits. We are acquiring new insights, new powers, new possibilities, but we can't

always get to grips with them precisely because we are so used to falling back on our old ways of

thinking and familiar ways of working.

Easycracy is therefore just as much a process of awareness. We have to get used to the idea that

managing an organization top-down is quite diferent from managing it bottom-up. And the question

is: will there be a 'top' in easycracy and in the near future? Collective intelligence, sharing knowledge in

smart ways, radical transparency, openness, connecting, swarms these are typical of the themes in

today's modern organization structures where we are no longer thinking in terms of bottom-up or top-

down. Easycracy is much less linear in character and strives to link all these themes together.

EASYCRACY WHAT IT ISNT

Easycracy doesn't ofer any ready-made solutions, it is more a way of thinking. Easycracy ofers points

for discussion that enable everyone to think up solutions for themselves and to make use of the

options that already exist.

Easycracy isn't a form of anarchy. It's not a revolutionary movement dedicated to overthrowing these

bureaucratic systems. Because there's nothing essentially wrong with bureaucracy. If we want to buy a

plate of sushi at a street market stall, for example, then it's comforting to know that there are ocial

instances responsible for checking that the sushi doesn't contain too many bacteria. And it's also good

to know that there are other instances that draw up rules to prevent the sea from being overfished, so

that our grandchildren also have the choice of a plate of sushi.

What does have a stifling efect on individuals, and throws up obstacles to solutions, is an excessive

amount of bureaucracy. The easycratic way is to discover new ways of thinking so that problems are

viewed as opportunities. And to convert these opportunities into creative solutions.

WHO IS THIS BOOK FOR?

Within all large groups of people, in every organization, you will meet people who are conservative-

minded and people who embrace change. This book is intended predominantly for individuals who

strive for improvements. More specifically, for people who realize that an improvement is, by

definition, a change, however upsetting that can be, because changes are typically accompanied by

insecurities. The average easycrat would be someone who works with enthusiasm and passion.

Someone who prefers to roll up their sleeves rather than cut corners. Someone who isn't looking to

hide, but dares to take the initiative and stick their neck out. Someone who feels intuitively that the old

way is often no longer the right way. Someone who is socially aware, takes responsibility and wants to


3/9

increase their efectiveness. Someone who doesnt want to reinvent the wheel, but wants to make use

of the opportunities that are already there.

Easycracy is not specific to a certain type of organization. Government or industry, it doesn't really

matter. Just as bureaucracy dominates in both government institutes and large commercial companies.

For an easycrat it doesn't make any diference whether the easycratic way of working is applied in a

non-profit environment to resolve a social issue, or in the context of increasing the market share of a

multinational listed on the stock exchange.

And neither is easycracy linked to ranks or classes. Anyone can be an easycrat, from the CEO to the

youngest waiter, from minister to civil servant. Easycracy runs right through all existing hierarchies. Via

countless formal and informal networks, contacts exist between the high-ranked and the low-ranked

within the existing hierarchical structure. Individuals communicate with each other and these contacts

impact not only the decision-making process, but increasingly and with ever more significant

consequences directly on the implementation of new initiatives.

THE TRADITIONAL MANAGER WILL ALSO BENEFIT

But the traditional, conservative-thinking manager or supervisor can also benefit from knowledge

about easycracy. Because every manager knows, deep down, that conservatism can never be more than

a temporary strategy designed to help an organization survive. However perfect an organization may

be, the world around it will continue to evolve. The environment of an organization is constantly

changing. The customer's demands are changing, the needs of employees are changing, the supply in

the labour market is changing, technology is changing and the competitor's range of goods and

services is changing. And if it wasn't already complex enough, as a result of this continuous stream of

changes, the threats and competition aren't just coming from the usual suspects. KLM isn't competing

only with Easyjet, but also with new high-speed trains that may become a viable alternative for air

travel. Coca-Cola isn't competing just with Pepsi, but also with a brand of drink that's launching a new

and improved fresh fruit juice onto the market. The popular Dutch commercial TV station RTL isn't just

having to compete with the other main commercial TV station SBS6 and with the public broadcasting

companies, but also with film DVDs that can be found in record shop bins at two euros apiece. The

popular caf-bar isn't just having to deal with the threats of customers switching allegiances to the

new trendy caf in town, it's also competing against people's living rooms, where the customer is

allowed to smoke.

So we're not making a wild assumption when we say that every organization that chooses to take

the conservative route is digging their own grave. Sooner or later, radical changes in supply and

demand in the economy will mean the end of the previously so successful traditionalist organization.

Adapting and improving the organization constantly is essential if you want to survive.

ALLIES

Changes are essential. With their innate desire for change, easycrats can therefore become natural

allies of the conservative, traditional manager. Because both are pursuing the same goal making sure

that the organization continues to make a useful contribution, so that the organization will have a

viable future.

An indirect benefit for the traditional managers is that the easycrats are not out to pull the rug from

under their feet. Because those in power are often deeply suspicious of change-oriented powers within

their organization. In the 20th century management theories, hierarchy played a crucial role.


4/9

Organizations were managed top-down. The knowledge and information that form the building blocks

for making well-reasoned decisions were restricted to those at the top of the hierarchy, and talented

and ambitious employees often had to deal with this resistance within the organization structure. To

make a useful contribution to the advancement of the organization, they also needed access to the

information building blocks. And to get that access, they first had to climb up the hierarchy. And to be

able to climb up the hierarchy, it was often necessary to saw through the rungs of the ladder

supporting the people already occupying positions higher up in the hierarchy. Improving the

organization was often the underlying (idealistic) goal, but the rat race in the hierarchical structure

became the means of achieving that goal.

In today's society, those methods are outdated. The information technology age has resulted in the

majority of information becoming transparent and freely accessible. In many organizations employees

have free access to computer systems and databases that contain a wealth of information that is

required for justifying and elaborating on new ideas and strategies. And what's more, today even an

intern at a multinational will probably have access to an enormous amount of business data. Any intern

with analytical skills and a creative mind who wants to extract knowledge from computer systems can

sometimes distil more and better-quality information from databases than the CEO of that same

company. Additionally, the impact of freely accessible information is often underestimated. Because

today's ambitious, talented employees now already have all the information building blocks they need,

they no longer have to waste time and energy climbing the hierarchical ladder but can just start doing

what they want developing and executing new ideas that can improve the organization, from the

bottom up. That's where the easycrat gets his satisfaction by making a meaningful contribution and

making himself useful. That's much more important than his ocial place in the hierarchical structure.

Status and salary have become relatively less significant (something we'll go into in more detail later).

So those in power have little to fear from the easycratic powers in the organization. Quite the

opposite in fact, because the easycratic powers help to keep the organization a going concern in a

rapidly changing world, they are in fact helping to protect the position of those in power.

MANAGER OF THE FUTURE

It's not so strange that a lot of managers have developed a natural sort of suspicion of change-minded

powers. In the traditional organization structures they often had to negotiate a long and dicult path

to climb up the hierarchy. And once you've reached that position it's quite human to want to defend it.

In easycracy, this issue doesn't play such a big role. Easycracy makes it much easier for the

management to distinguish the power-hungry climbers from those who sincerely want to improve the

organization they're working in. A bureaucracy's ocial goal is to carry out controls. The processes

within organizations have to be followed according to pre-defined rules and procedures, with the aim

of producing higher consistent quality. But unocially, a bureaucracy is the means for those in

power to safeguard their position. If the position of those in power were to become less prone to

threat, there would be less reason for a bureaucracy to exist, thereby creating room for an easycratic

organization culture. The manager of the future is a leader that can integrate the conservative- and

change-minded streams in an organization to create a harmonious whole.

RESISTANCE

Additionally, an important role in easycracy is played by the more traditional type of manager by


5/9

ofering resistance! An organization that never changes is doomed, but too much change isn't healthy

either. Although improvement is by definition a change, not every change is necessarily an

improvement. The key to success lies in maximizing the changes in an organization that result in

improvement and minimizing the changes that don't lead to improvement. Ofering resistance to less

successful initiatives from the bottom up will become a real task for the manager in an easycratic

organization culture. That means that such initiatives will not be vetoed or held back, as would happen

in a bureaucracy, but that the proposers of such initiatives will be assisted in perceiving their

disadvantages. A new plan never appears out of thin air. Quite often it's a response to an undesirable

situation. If a new plan has unforeseen drawbacks, this doesn't automatically mean that the whole plan

will have to be trashed straight away. With some modifications, it can still often lead to an

improvement in the organization.

FROM BULLY TO COACH

When, in a strongly hierarchical organization culture, initiatives from the bottom up are discouraged by

the higher management layers, this often has a demotivating efect. Managers are familiar with this

phenomenon, and because they want to prevent this from happening, they have developed a whole

battery of delaying tactics they can use to maintain the status quo. Typically, the impression is created

that management is enthusiastic about the initiative, but in practice the efect is the same as if the

proposal had been rejected. In the short term, motivation levels will be maintained, but as soon as the

employees in an organization realize that every initiative will eventually get smothered in the

bureaucracy, the demotivation just escalates. For the most ambitious and talented employees, there's

just one way to improve the organization climb up the hierarchy. Or leave the company.

In an easycratic organization culture, bottom-up initiatives are encouraged. Criticism from the top

is welcomed in such a culture. The manager is no longer considered a bully who wants to stop

anything changing, but more as the experienced coach who can make use of his experience and

helicopter view to guide the changes along the right path. This will make working in an easycracy more

enjoyable for both managers and non-managers a benefit we can't stress too often, as the literature

shows a clear relationship between job satisfaction and the performance of an organization.

SWARMS

An important element of the easycratic way of thinking is the belief in the power of swarms and in

collective intelligence. This is a topic we'll go into in more detail in chapter 3. The easycrat is convinced

that the holder of power doesn't have a monopoly on knowledge. But neither does the operational

employee. The best decisions are often the ones based on all the knowledge present within the

organization. And the best organization is the organization that makes optimum use of all the

knowledge available.

An organization is a swarm of people that has access to all kinds of knowledge and, taken together,

this represents the human capital of an organization. Not making full use of this human capital is a

form of economic waste that is comparable to the inecient use of other production factors, such as

raw materials or machines. A farmer who leaves half his land uncultivated or has too many tractors

lying idle in his shed will be far less productive than a farmer who does make ecient use of his

production factors. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the same doesnt apply to a company


6/9

that doesn't take care of its human capital.

And yet this is exactly what happens in hierarchical organization structures. The very nature of

bureaucracy means that a lot of knowledge remains unused within an organization. Decisions are

predominantly taken in the top levels of the hierarchy, whereby the views on a particular problem are

often too restricted. If the top of the hierarchy considers the material too complex, and is of theopinion that there is not enough relevant knowledge available, external experts with the specific

knowledge will generally be hired in. There's nothing wrong with experts of course, but in their fixation

to raise their own profile, they tend to adopt extreme viewpoints. There's hardly any topic imaginable

where there aren't two camps of experts, scrambling over themselves with diametrically opposite

visions and opinions.

If every organization were to work like this, we'd hardly notice. Then it would be like the Olympic

high jumpers all using the straddle technique. It's an exciting contest and everybody seems to jumping

to great heights, until one change-minded athlete thinks up a diferent technique. Then it becomes

immediately obvious that everyone could have jumped higher using that innovative idea.Perhaps this is a rather obvious metaphor, but many organizations copy their competitors, or continue

working as they have always worked. If all airlines are accustomed to sending tickets to the customer's

home, and then letting them wait in endless queues at the check-in desk, it gives the impression that

all airline companies work eciently. Until one of them (usually a newcomer to the market) has the

bright idea that all paper tickets are actually redundant documents, in view of the fact that a passenger

list with names that can be ticked ofalready exists. And that checking in is much easier online, so that

the customers no longer have to wait an hour in the queue. As soon as one provider in the market

introduces an innovation, the diferences become painfully clear and all providers in the market

typically switch quickly to the new way of working. Just like all the high jumpers who adopted theFosbury Flop in a short space of time.

THE EASYCRACY GOAL

The example of airline companies typifies the essence of easycracy. Is it really possible that twenty

years ago there was nobody in the airline industry who said: Wow, that's a really cumbersome

procedure, and what a lot of administration costs involved in sending tickets to customers. That

doesn't happen in the railway sector does it? There must be a smarter way.

And as soon as the first airlines started selling tickets online, surely someone could have asked

themselves the question: If we can sell tickets online, couldn't we get the passengers to check in

online too? It's more than likely that this knowledge for improving business processes was present in

the collective intelligence of a lot of airline companies long before the change actually took place. But

the problem is that this kind of knowledge just doesn't penetrate to the top of the hierarchy where the

decisions are taken.

The goal of easycracy is to improve organizations, and to make people's work easier and more

enjoyable. The primary fuel of easycracy is making better use of the knowledge that's already there. If

organizations can design their procedures, decision-taking processes and organization structure in a

more easycratic manner, they will increase their chances of survival. Individuals either inside or

outside organizations don't have to sit and wait for that to happen, they can start tomorrow. The

information society has made the tools available that enable everyone without the need for capital


7/9

investments to set workable initiatives in motion for tackling major and minor problems of all kinds,

and to implement improvements. This can be done both inside and outside existing organizations,

either cutting through the existing bureaucracies, or manoeuvring neatly around them, in the grey

areas.

SMS replaces airline ticket at KLMCall it coincidence or not, but on the very same day we were writing these sections

on the example of airline tickets and checking in, KLM was introducing its own

innovation. This is what we read the next day in the newspapers: Air France and

KLM have extended their electronic boarding pass service. Customers can now check

in using their mobile phone. They then receive a boarding pass via a text message

(SMS), or per e-mail on a PDA. Theres no need to print it out. The boarding pass

contains all the information that would appear on a standard boarding pass,

including a unique barcode. The barcode is scanned at the gate and can be presented

at the baggage drop-off points, the safety checkpoints, the lounges and the tax

free shops at Schiphol.KLM and Air France are traditional national airline companies. This innovation

enables them to make use of smart information technology to improve their service,

reduce red tape and make their customers lives a little more enjoyable. And we

havent even mentioned the enormous drop in their costs. Even at KLM, people are

starting to think in an easycratic way.

BUT WHY?

An efective improvement will usually be quickly duplicated by others. So what benefit is there to being

the first to implement it? Everyone has adopted the Fosbury Flop and they're jumping higher than ever

but the gaps in level havent changed. So why should we worry ourselves about this issue?

Good question! But even though innovations are picked up quickly enough by others, the pioneers

continue to benefit for a fairly long period. The first one to successfully introduce an innovation will

get an image boost. They gain the sympathy of their customers, sympathy on the labour market and a

reputation for being a popular organization to work for. And they will even get sympathy from the

supplier side as a desired partner to work with, because the image of an innovative organization will

also rub ofon the supplier. This image advantage usually persists for a long period, even when all

competing organizations are delivering the same products using the same production methods.

A far more important reason for pursuing improvement than image boosts is the threats emanating

from the outside world. Many innovations originate from outside the organization, from players in

other sectors. The traditional airline companies have copied the innovations introduced by newcomers

to the market and are working more eciently than ever. But despite this increase in eciency, the

competition has never been so fierce due to these same newcomers. What if the traditional

companies had thought up these same innovations themselves much earlier? If they had made better

use of the existing collective intelligence within their own organization, those newcomers would very

likely never have entered the market.

It's an ironic paradox. Based on the (understandable) need to maintain the position they have

gained, organizations develop a spider's web of bureaucratic procedures and rules. But that same

bureaucracy has a sufocating tendency, it makes the collective intelligence inert, hinders

improvements and thus serves to attract new players to the market, who then start to undermine the


8/9

positions already acquired. And things will run their course. There must be a better way the

easycratic way.

THE COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE OF THIS BOOK

Shoemakers children never have shoes is an American expression used to describe situations

like lung specialists who smoke, trac police who ignore red lights, and gardeners who cover their

own back garden under paving stones. It's not always that easy actually applying the theories and

advice in your personal life that you proclaim in your professional life. But we have attempted to avoid

this pitfall.

During the creation process of this book we made thankful use of the principle of collective

intelligence. Before we started writing, we organized sessions with progressive and critical thinkers

from diferent fields. The participants in the discussions were invited because we expected them to be

able to contribute useful insights from their own work experience. Formal function levels and academic

titles did not play any role in this selection process. These sessions were extremely useful, augmenting

the initial basic material with anecdotes, cases, new perspectives and modifications to ideas.

It's dicult to indicate exactly which participant in which discussion is responsible for which

contribution to this book. And in many cases, the added insight was the culmination of an interactive

group process.

EASYCRACY AND LIFEHACKING

Easycracy is the logical consequence of a movement called lifehacking. Lifehacking is all about

getting more done in less time, which is made possible by sharing smart ICT solutions and new

approaches to the concept ofwork. It's a combination of time management, knowledge management,

web 2.0, personal development and intelligent insights. Figure 1.1 shows how the concepts of

lifehacking and easycracy are linked.

lifehacking easycracy politicsIndividual Groups of

individuals

Society

Organization

department

Concern

Tools Collaborating Strategy

Tips Mobilizing Policy

Tricks Philosophy

Do it! In practice Theory


9/9

Pragmatic

Initiatives

Start

tomorrow

Hold a

meeting

Active Long term

Figure 1.1 The differences between lifehacking, easycracy and politics

With lifehacking, the individual first learns the art of working smarter, applies this to easycracy and

then extends it. Within formal and informal networks, sharing, communicating and mobilizing are

essential processes. Within networks, knowledge is ofered and spread but also acquired with the

aim of efecting improvements, developing innovations, or at the very least initiating the first steps to

improvement. This is possible within organizations, but also alongside organizations. And always in an

active and pragmatic way. Easycracy is a vision on working and organizing, lifehacking ofers the smart

tools required to facilitate this.

Documents

Easycratie Chapter 1