Freedom, Inc_ - Brian M. Carney [101]
But belief in bureaucracy’s absolute fairness through regulation is utopian, too. Contrary to Weber’s idealistic view, most real bureaucracies evolve into a type of monstrous “feudal bureaucracy,”4 a government of nomenklatura—etymologically, of people called by names. The nomenklatura are personable and considerate to those who are “one of them” but treat others in a dehumanizing manner, often referring to them as “numbers,” “files,” “full-time equivalents,” or even “fluids,” as one European corporation designates the temps, to be managed along with the water and electricity.
But even if bureaucracy is replaced by an environment that satisfies people’s universal needs, the imperative of coordination remains real. For people to act both freely and effectively, they must first understand and “own” the answer to Zobrist’s “Why?” question, so that they can aim at the correct goal. In other words, they must understand the company’s vision as well as how their own actions comport with that vision. Think of Bob Davids, going over the list of supplies that his winemaker, Kris, had requested. Davids reviewed the list not in order to find places to cut costs or corners, but to ensure that Kris had made each choice with Sea Smoke’s vision in mind of making the best wine humanly possible from that vineyard. Those were very early days at what is still a small and young company, and Davids felt that going over the list was important for reinforcing Sea Smoke’s vision in the mind of a key employee. Even so, course corrections and reminders became necessary over time to keep people focused on that vision, as when Kris tried to save a buck by using old oak barrels for the white wine instead of making it world-class.
Rich Teerlink, likewise, spent more than a year trying to establish and put on paper a “joint vision” for Harley-Davidson—one produced and shared by management and union members alike. Establishing a vision for the company that is widely accepted is critical to the liberation campaign because you cannot replace something with nothing. Of course, a vision by itself can be hard to apply to particular circumstances, even when it is well understood. That’s why liberated companies generally have a set of guardrails, as it were, to guide employees’ choices.
W. L. Gore & Associates’ principles of fairness, commitment, and the waterline are an example of these guardrails. At GSI, they called their version of these guiding principles the “rules of the game.” These guardrails often share similarities across companies, but they are never the same in any two companies. That’s because in each company, they emerge organically as a way of bolstering people’s self-discipline within the firm. The moment they start to ossify into formal policies—“No one is allowed to wear a tie!”—they lose that virtue and become arbitrary constraints. That’s why, at their most effective, they are simple, unwritten, and self-enforced. A leader in a traditional company who finds himself thinking, “What we need around here is a little discipline!” ought to consider looking around for the causes of the lack of discipline. He might be surprised by what he finds.
But for the vision and these principles to inform employees’ daily work, they, too, must change work habits they might have developed while at “how” companies. Some will be willing to do so, while some will not. Others may be willing but skeptical. After all, if “how” control works to some degree, however imperfectly, and with less hassle and risk, why not stick with it? Many successful companies existed for years with “how” cultures and decision-making policies. And just as they used to say that you’d never get fired for buying an IBM, we doubt there are many top executives who have lost their jobs for tightening