Most of us know feudality from school, being the predominant way of organising a state during the Middle Ages. Although embedded in a traditional society based on a stable order imposed by god, some elements may still be of value in current contexts.
Discarding the basis for legitimising the position of nobility as the leaders in the Middle Ages, feudality is mainly a method for distributing power and a way for the king or emperor to exert control over his realm while having a sustainable community.
Looking at the material context of medieval society, feudality was a logical organisational format. Traveling even over short distance was difficult and took time. Roads were rarely paved so using them was mainly restricted to summertime when it was dry and days were long. As it easily took a day to travel to the next village, it was hardly feasible for the lord to enforce strict control on regions further away. Giving instructions and receiving feedback on them easily took weeks. On matters not involving the overall structure, fiefs were alone in their decision process. Although set in a rigid and strictly hierarchical context, legitimised by god, fiefs were largely independent, autarchic units. They had to decide on their operational besognes.
A fief had to be able to subsist independently of others. It could and should survive on its own, provide in its victuals, producing enough agricultural produce for its own inhabitants, be able to construct housing, furniture and tools to get necessary production going. Specialisation was limited. They were also self policing on the level of internal peace keeping and justice. They also produced enough surplus to support nobility and clergy. Their focus was on their purpose: subsist.
They were only called to help when neighbouring or when fiefs of which they were part of were under attack of an external source. On the other hand they presented enough force to ascertain the equilibrium with neighbouring fiefs.
In the ceremony, where a lord got ordained, tokens of trust were exchanged delegating full control to the lord while promising the lord eternal support and assistance. As such the local lord was also representing his higher master to which he had sworn obedience, while assuring representation of his domain with higher authorities when it came to engagements of a broader nature. Other interlinking was extremely limited, thus evolution was slow.
This is the basic setup of feudal society without distortions incurred by powerplay or unbalancing privileges.
Considering current organisations and societal evolutions a new type of distance could be identified. Increasing specialisation, either technical or functional, makes communication across the board more difficult. Vocabulary and practices often differ between groups and they have different support, infrastructure and tooling needs. Competition requires light, flexible and adjustable setups, quick on their feet to respond to changing contexts under their own responsibility not needing to go long ways through the overall organisation to obtain feedback or authorisation. This would take too long.
The medieval principles of autarchic units existing in balance with neighbouring units are also found in new organisation types heralded in modern management literature.
The Connected company defines it a podular organisation where “you divide labor into “businesses within the business”” fully oriented at its customer. An infrastructural platform sees to it that the necessary information and knowledge can be shared and common support activities are mutualised.
In holacracy work is organised in holons, “a whole that is part of a larger whole”. These holons or circles are organised along the lines of business functions and processes and fundamentally autonomous for their internal organisation of work, however constrained by the need of other circles and anchored in the context of the organisation. “The “Lead Link” is appointed by the super-circle to represent its needs in the sub-circle. A lead link holds the perspective and functions needed to align the sub-circle with the purpose, strategy and needs of its broader context. The other link, called a “Representative Link” (…) is elected by the members of the sub-circle, and represents the sub-circle within its super-circle.”
Different to the past, management or leadership overhead is out of the question. Each unit should be self steering based on a set of basic governing principles, mutual member negotiation and unit democracy.
Although recurring in other contexts mechanisms from the past re-appear, ideas are recycled and depend on similar conditions for their success and sustainability.
Each member of the organisation should be taking up responsibilities for the role (holacracy) or tasks assigned to or taken up by him/her, he should act as an engaged adult
Have a clear view on the organisational purpose and vision
Share the common vision or purpose declared or grown in the organisation
Avoid powerplay, created when units see possibilities to lift the equilibrium instated in the initial organisation
When providing a governance framework keep it crisp and stick to general widely applicable rules. Avoid to let it become an elaborate set of detailed rules and procedures.
In this context it is also tempting to retreat in the own autarchic circle, not sharing any knowledge or learning and to focus on the internals of the working of the circle. The businesses in the business not contributing to the whole will eventually lose efficiency by not sharing experience across the board, merely being a franchise or an independent organisation. The potential for corporate learning is clearly available based on the platform services on global level.
Keep connected to your customer (in a broad definition) and continue to observe how needs and behaviour are evolving while capitalising on your talents, knowledge, competences and experience.