Collaborative work vs hierarchical work

Just as at a large scale there are different forms of government and social organization, at a smaller scale there are different forms for project management.

First, let’s define project as a fixed goal, an objective that is unattainable for a single individual but can be achieved if worked on collectively with other people (A long time ago this was called “enterprise,” but over time the meaning of the words has changed).

The two main forms of work that we currently handle are collaborative work and hierarchical work, which are so similar that for many it is difficult to differentiate one from the other.

In hierarchical work, a single person (or a small group of people with great affinity among them) leads the project. The work is divided into teams defined by leaders, and instructions are given from the top down to the workers.

In collaborative work, teams are divided into work cells, which are coordinated by sending ideas in all directions, without absolute leaders, but rather area specialists defined by rules meritocratic.

In hierarchical work, the size of the team depends on the organizer’s and leader’s capacity for organization and attention, and can expand if workers are replaced by officers, each with assigned workers, delegating to them a limited capacity for autonomy, always following the behavior and organization patterns of the leader. Thus, the actual size of hierarchical units will depend entirely on the capacity of the individuals who form the hierarchical structure. In most cases, no person can manage more than eight subordinates.

In collaborative work, the size is smaller; more than five people begin to have conflicts among themselves. However, there are methodologies that allow this natural limit to be extended greatly, such as, for example, SCRUM. Using an appropriate methodology, the limit per unit can be extended up to a hundred people. Additionally, if collaborative work is divided into cells, this number is multiplied by several thousands, as there is no real limit to the number of cells that can be created.

In hierarchical work, results are slow, but they achieve great quality. The scope of projects in a hierarchical structure depends entirely on the leader’s capacity. If a leader does not have the capacity to lead a project, the result will be poor.

In collaborative work, results are faster, but the quality of the results is inferior. Without adequate methodologies for process synaptic control and result evaluation, projects could never appear or do so in a totally inefficient manner. Nevertheless, collaborative work has the capacity to handle large projects of much greater complexity.

Hierarchical structures are easy to implement because they are in line with human nature. In fact, when a collaborative structure is poorly implemented, it degrades into hierarchical structures. This makes forming a collaborative structure more difficult.

However, a hierarchical structure depends on the capability of the hierarchy and its officers. The capability to be a hierarchy or officer is acquired from childhood, and the number of people with that capability is limited, even more so if it must be combined with skills for a specific technology. Unlike this, collaborative work does not depend on the capability of any individual, making it possible for an individual with much experience to be replaced by individuals with little capability. Thus, collaborative work can form larger groups whose members are interchangeable.

As for the flow of ideas, in hierarchical work it is the hierarchy who conceives the entire project as well as the work route to complete it. Officers adhere to the work route and subordinates follow the orders of the hierarchy and its officers. Errors committed are passed to the hierarchy, and this one dictates the solutions. Likewise, the evaluation of results is the hierarchy’s task, while officers perform partial evaluations following the hierarchy’s parameters.

In collaborative work, however, ideas flow from all its members, are consolidated, and partial plans are drawn up dividing the work according to the capabilities of each individual. After each stage, evaluations are carried out, solutions are passed to specialists in each area, and new plans are drawn up; each cell draws up its plans according to isolated objectives and the cells coordinate with each other to reach common goals, with each one being responsible for its own evaluations. If a cell is deficient, it is restructured or dissolved, new cells can be formed or tasks can be reassigned among them. Thus, collaborative work can achieve higher goals and obtain better results, since if a project is too much for a cell, changes can always be made to reach the objective, whereas in hierarchical work it is not possible to change the hierarchy.

The reason why many confuse both methods is because, as I already said before, collaborative work with an inefficient methodology degrades to form hierarchical structures, so many projects that start off with collaborative work end up being carried out in a hierarchical manner, and individuals continue to call it collaborative even though it is no longer.

Collaborative work degrades when ideas do not flow properly, evaluations are not conducted correctly, or authority is imposed. When the methodology fails in collaborative work, individuals suffer stress and begin to seek solutions to their personal situations. Some individuals end up abandoning the project while others seek an authority to delegate responsibilities to, thus forming a hierarchical structure.

And well, next week I have to face the fact that my cell degraded in just a week of having started jajajajja.