An interesting post here from Harold Jarche on wirearchies. This conclusion, in particular, resonated for me:
Becoming a wirearchy requires new organizational structures that incorporate communities and networks. In addition, they require new ways of doing work, like thinking in terms ofperpetual Beta and doing manageable probes to test complex problems. It’s a new way of doing work, within a new work structure. Both are required.
Resilient organisations, ones that respond well to changes in the environments, can be understood as networks of learning. They explore new opportunities and challenges and reconfigure in response to new stimulus – they both construct (probe) and are constructed by their learning. I would also highlight that organisation “incorporate communities and networks”: in effect, organisations are part of those networks and communities but they are not synonymous with one another. Rather, what we might identify as ‘the organisation’ is a fairly arbitrary slice of numerous networks and communities. For many knowledge workers in particular, the boundary of the organisation may be pretty much irrelevant. This perspective then raises some interesting questions on learning and development (who is responsible for what, where does it take place, what are the objectives – if I am a node in networks then what and whose objectives is [my] L&D seeking to meet?