A633.3.3.RB_FogartyShawn

            Morning Star, Inc. started as a small tomato trucking company and has evolved over time to multiple facets of tomato production that produce over 700 million dollars a year in revenue. The organization however does so without any bosses. They have taken a tree-hugger community garden idea to an out of this world level. Morning Star, Inc. outlined that many organizations attribute almost one third of the organization to management. For an organization of 100,000 employees you have managers to manage other managers that tie up 33% of the organizational payroll (Hamel, 2011). This is a poor allocation of resources.

             St Luke’s organization is primarily in the advertisement business but does so with a unique approach similar to Morning Star, Inc. The principles of St Luke are that the company is a co-share where all employees receive an equal distribution of the proceeds. Employees work on what they are best suited for and not necessarily a specific hiring position. Individuals are held to standards established collectively and conduct an open monthly review of individual progress (Coutu, 2000). This is ironically like working and living in a glass house.

            Both companies take on a self-management model which encapsulates several principles in order to be effective.  First and foremost they make the mission the boss by letting the employees forge agreements which empower everyone thus eliminating the title “the boss.” Morning Star, Inc. doesn’t believe in trying to force people into boxes or cubicles for that matter while St Luke’s relatively works in a glass office with no predetermined offices, labels or positions. There is encouragement for impact, not necessarily for promotion which allows everyone an opportunity to succeed. Through peer to peer agreements individuals outline clear targets while progress is available through transparent data.

            The advantages of these self-management style range from individuals that have a higher degree of imitative, expertise, flexibility, collegiality, better judgment, and lastly loyalty. Loyalty is important because it takes a special breed to adapt to a self or peer-managed system which makes the hiring process more robust and lengthy. Some disadvantages are comprised of a tougher adjustment from traditional management styles to a self-managed style. Also, a longer induction periods or hiring process along with adjustments to different accountability systems challenges organizational growth.

            In contrast, my organization is traditional as it’s built on the 3-to-5 Principle. My Operations Officer who developed the campaign plan for our organization outlined five tenets that would best correlate to a traditional business strategy. The concept however doesn’t intertwine much the evolution of organizational change. Our organization is outlined having a superior or “manager” for every three to five people in the traditional hierarchal pyramid structure. This leads all the way from a private up to the executive and chief. As the military is more on the rank and file with a focus on discipline the self-managed organizational ideas such as Morning Star, Inc. or St Luke will not work as a whole.

            However, within smaller elements it has started to shine. Although I manage and provide oversight over several programs within my unit I seldom have to give “orders” or “tasks” to be completed. I hold a working group once a month to bring everyone together. Each subordinate unit has one or two representatives within the programs I oversee totaling 15 personnel. I consider this my team and these people fall within my “bubble” as I call it. I chair the working group but I allow them to drive the train or conversation. Generally we come up with a few good ideas, sometimes some not so good ideas. The intent is that everyone gets a chance to put their two-cents in before we agree on a course of action.

            This is not the natural template for military decision making however I prefer to chart my own path. The best aspect to this approach is that I offer opportunities for others to shine rather than hand out tasks or orders. I’m in a solid position where I don’t have to earn “gold stars” anymore so through coaching and mentorship to those within my “bubble” I present each new idea as an opportunity for them to shine. I don’t think we are in full swing as a self-managed organization but within my “bubble” we certainly operate on a hybrid system.

            I plan to continue this movement as it has been productive and supportive to my team. The advantages outlined above for self-managed organizations are relevant and I have a high degree of loyalty and appreciation as they are allowed to “shine.” I do not imagine the US Army as a whole could support this ideology. In part, those within my “bubble” are highly trained and very capable on the individual level. Although collectively the US Army is a superior fighting force a fellow officer, CPT Nicole Protz, best summarized the capabilities of individuals as “Not everyone can be the brightest crayon in the box.” Overall, self-managed teams would likely be more productive however too many people depend on the traditional hierarchical organizational architecture.  

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142-150.

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.