INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY
In the organization models of the 20th century, the most powerful management tools thinkable were hierarchy, power, control and a monopoly on knowledge. But in a time when the information society has become such a dominant player, these tools have lost much of their significance. Whether you like it or not, organizations are increasingly being run from the bottom up, rather than top-down. We will need to learn how to operate in a world where these new laws and opportunities dominate. And this is exactly what easycracy facilitates. Easycracy has no respect for existing organization structures. But thats not to say that its the equivalent of anarchy. It is not a political pamphlet, its a way of working for both individuals and organizations. Including the traditional manager.

The problem
Virtually every problem in todays society is essentially one of bureaucracy. There are enough individuals available to provide the solutions, but the successful execution of these solutions is still being sabotaged by a stifling web of bureaucracy: rules, protocols, procedures, hierarchies and a lack of collaboration.

The solution
Easycracy is a new way of working, organizing and collaborating in the 21st century in compliance with the existing rules, but making smart use of the opportunities everyone has easy access to thanks to information technology 2.0. Easycracy is the best form of bureaucracy, and the least complicated. And the wonderful thing about it is that you can put it into practice straight away. Whether youre a department head, or a policymaking civil servant, a sole trader or a volunteer at your local sports club. You dont have to wait till the next elections or the upcoming management team meeting. Easycracy is a way of working.

HOW DOES THIS EASYCRACY THING WORK THEN?

Easycracy is an attempt to identify the best and easiest form of bureaucracy. In the last ten years, society has transformed almost unnoticed into an information society. Technology is making it increasingly possible for knowledge to be accessed easily and for people to connect with each other on a massive scale. The combination of these two factors results in enormously powerful networks with great potential being created everywhere. We're living in a world of rapid change. The combination of freely accessible knowledge and connected collaborating individuals is so powerful that suddenly opportunities for resolving major issues are omnipresent. In practice, this can lead to problems, because the solutions offered are often hindered by the bureaucracy within huge, inexible organizations.

We tend to do things in the old familiar way. We typically work with organization models that were thought up in an era pre-dating the information society. An era that was characterized by inaccessible, security-protected information. Knowledge is power' and hierarchical organization structures were the logical result of this way of thinking. But now that information has become so accessible, these traditional hierarchical organization structures have become a great deal less logical. And if it's true that knowledge is power and who ever doubted that? then haven't we all become powerful, now that we all have access to that knowledge? It's not only the bureaucratic rules that are getting in the way of progress. At least as important are our own deep-seated habits. We are acquiring new insights, new powers, new possibilities, but we can't always get to grips with them precisely because we are so used to falling back on our old ways of thinking and familiar ways of working. Easycracy is therefore just as much a process of awareness. We have to get used to the idea that managing an organization top-down is quite different from managing it bottom-up. And the question is: will there be a 'top' in easycracy and in the near future? Collective intelligence, sharing knowledge in smart ways, radical transparency, openness, connecting, swarms these are typical of the themes in today's modern organization structures where we are no longer thinking in terms of bottom-up or topdown. Easycracy is much less linear in character and strives to link all these themes together.

EASYCRACY WHAT IT ISNT

Easycracy doesn't offer any ready-made solutions, it is more a way of thinking. Easycracy offers points for discussion that enable everyone to think up solutions for themselves and to make use of the options that already exist. Easycracy isn't a form of anarchy. It's not a revolutionary movement dedicated to overthrowing these bureaucratic systems. Because there's nothing essentially wrong with bureaucracy. If we want to buy a plate of sushi at a street market stall, for example, then it's comforting to know that there are official instances responsible for checking that the sushi doesn't contain too many bacteria. And it's also good to know that there are other instances that draw up rules to prevent the sea from being overshed, so that our grandchildren also have the choice of a plate of sushi. What does have a stiing effect on individuals, and throws up obstacles to solutions, is an excessive amount of bureaucracy. The easycratic way is to discover new ways of thinking so that problems are viewed as opportunities. And to convert these opportunities into creative solutions.

WHO IS THIS BOOK FOR?

Within all large groups of people, in every organization, you will meet people who are conservativeminded and people who embrace change. This book is intended predominantly for individuals who strive for improvements. More specically, for people who realize that an improvement is, by denition, a change, however upsetting that can be, because changes are typically accompanied by insecurities. The average easycrat would be someone who works with enthusiasm and passion. Someone who prefers to roll up their sleeves rather than cut corners. Someone who isn't looking to hide, but dares to take the initiative and stick their neck out. Someone who feels intuitively that the old way is often no longer the right way. Someone who is socially aware, takes responsibility and wants to

increase their effectiveness. Someone who doesnt want to reinvent the wheel, but wants to make use of the opportunities that are already there. Easycracy is not specic to a certain type of organization. Government or industry, it doesn't really matter. Just as bureaucracy dominates in both government institutes and large commercial companies. For an easycrat it doesn't make any difference whether the easycratic way of working is applied in a non-prot environment to resolve a social issue, or in the context of increasing the market share of a multinational listed on the stock exchange. And neither is easycracy linked to ranks or classes. Anyone can be an easycrat, from the CEO to the youngest waiter, from minister to civil servant. Easycracy runs right through all existing hierarchies. Via countless formal and informal networks, contacts exist between the high-ranked and the low-ranked within the existing hierarchical structure. Individuals communicate with each other and these contacts impact not only the decision-making process, but increasingly and with ever more signicant consequences directly on the implementation of new initiatives.

THE TRADITIONAL MANAGER WILL ALSO BENEFIT

But the traditional, conservative-thinking manager or supervisor can also benet from knowledge about easycracy. Because every manager knows, deep down, that conservatism can never be more than a temporary strategy designed to help an organization survive. However perfect an organization may be, the world around it will continue to evolve. The environment of an organization is constantly changing. The customer's demands are changing, the needs of employees are changing, the supply in the labour market is changing, technology is changing and the competitor's range of goods and services is changing. And if it wasn't already complex enough, as a result of this continuous stream of changes, the threats and competition aren't just coming from the usual suspects. KLM isn't competing only with Easyjet, but also with new high-speed trains that may become a viable alternative for air travel. Coca-Cola isn't competing just with Pepsi, but also with a brand of drink that's launching a new and improved fresh fruit juice onto the market. The popular Dutch commercial TV station RTL isn't just having to compete with the other main commercial TV station SBS6 and with the public broadcasting companies, but also with lm DVDs that can be found in record shop bins at two euros apiece. The popular caf-bar isn't just having to deal with the threats of customers switching allegiances to the new trendy caf in town, it's also competing against people's living rooms, where the customer is allowed to smoke. So we're not making a wild assumption when we say that every organization that chooses to take the conservative route is digging their own grave. Sooner or later, radical changes in supply and demand in the economy will mean the end of the previously so successful traditionalist organization. Adapting and improving the organization constantly is essential if you want to survive.

ALLIES
Changes are essential. With their innate desire for change, easycrats can therefore become natural allies of the conservative, traditional manager. Because both are pursuing the same goal making sure that the organization continues to make a useful contribution, so that the organization will have a viable future. An indirect benet for the traditional managers is that the easycrats are not out to pull the rug from under their feet. Because those in power are often deeply suspicious of change-oriented powers within their organization. In the 20th century management theories, hierarchy played a crucial role.

Organizations were managed top-down. The knowledge and information that form the building blocks for making well-reasoned decisions were restricted to those at the top of the hierarchy, and talented and ambitious employees often had to deal with this resistance within the organization structure. To make a useful contribution to the advancement of the organization, they also needed access to the information building blocks. And to get that access, they rst had to climb up the hierarchy. And to be able to climb up the hierarchy, it was often necessary to saw through the rungs of the ladder supporting the people already occupying positions higher up in the hierarchy. Improving the organization was often the underlying (idealistic) goal, but the rat race in the hierarchical structure became the means of achieving that goal. In today's society, those methods are outdated. The information technology age has resulted in the

majority of information becoming transparent and freely accessible. In many organizations employees have free access to computer systems and databases that contain a wealth of information that is required for justifying and elaborating on new ideas and strategies. And what's more, today even an intern at a multinational will probably have access to an enormous amount of business data. Any intern with analytical skills and a creative mind who wants to extract knowledge from computer systems can sometimes distil more and better-quality information from databases than the CEO of that same company. Additionally, the impact of freely accessible information is often underestimated. Because today's ambitious, talented employees now already have all the information building blocks they need, they no longer have to waste time and energy climbing the hierarchical ladder but can just start doing what they want developing and executing new ideas that can improve the organization, from the bottom up. That's where the easycrat gets his satisfaction by making a meaningful contribution and making himself useful. That's much more important than his official place in the hierarchical structure. Status and salary have become relatively less signicant (something we'll go into in more detail later). So those in power have little to fear from the easycratic powers in the organization. Quite the opposite in fact, because the easycratic powers help to keep the organization a going concern in a rapidly changing world, they are in fact helping to protect the position of those in power.

MANAGER OF THE FUTURE

It's not so strange that a lot of managers have developed a natural sort of suspicion of change-minded powers. In the traditional organization structures they often had to negotiate a long and difficult path to climb up the hierarchy. And once you've reached that position it's quite human to want to defend it. In easycracy, this issue doesn't play such a big role. Easycracy makes it much easier for the management to distinguish the power-hungry climbers from those who sincerely want to improve the organization they're working in. A bureaucracy's official goal is to carry out controls. The processes within organizations have to be followed according to pre-dened rules and procedures, with the aim of producing higher consistent quality. But unofficially, a bureaucracy is the means for those in power to safeguard their position. If the position of those in power were to become less prone to threat, there would be less reason for a bureaucracy to exist, thereby creating room for an easycratic organization culture. The manager of the future is a leader that can integrate the conservative- and change-minded streams in an organization to create a harmonious whole.

RESISTANCE
Additionally, an important role in easycracy is played by the more traditional type of manager by

offering resistance! An organization that never changes is doomed, but too much change isn't healthy either. Although improvement is by denition a change, not every change is necessarily an improvement. The key to success lies in maximizing the changes in an organization that result in improvement and minimizing the changes that don't lead to improvement. Offering resistance to less successful initiatives from the bottom up will become a real task for the manager in an easycratic organization culture. That means that such initiatives will not be vetoed or held back, as would happen in a bureaucracy, but that the proposers of such initiatives will be assisted in perceiving their disadvantages. A new plan never appears out of thin air. Quite often it's a response to an undesirable situation. If a new plan has unforeseen drawbacks, this doesn't automatically mean that the whole plan will have to be trashed straight away. With some modications, it can still often lead to an improvement in the organization.

FROM BULLY TO COACH

When, in a strongly hierarchical organization culture, initiatives from the bottom up are discouraged by the higher management layers, this often has a demotivating effect. Managers are familiar with this phenomenon, and because they want to prevent this from happening, they have developed a whole battery of delaying tactics they can use to maintain the status quo. Typically, the impression is created that management is enthusiastic about the initiative, but in practice the effect is the same as if the proposal had been rejected. In the short term, motivation levels will be maintained, but as soon as the employees in an organization realize that every initiative will eventually get smothered in the bureaucracy, the demotivation just escalates. For the most ambitious and talented employees, there's just one way to improve the organization climb up the hierarchy. Or leave the company. In an easycratic organization culture, bottom-up initiatives are encouraged. Criticism from the top is welcomed in such a culture. The manager is no longer considered a bully who wants to stop anything changing, but more as the experienced coach who can make use of his experience and helicopter view to guide the changes along the right path. This will make working in an easycracy more enjoyable for both managers and non-managers a benet we can't stress too often, as the literature shows a clear relationship between job satisfaction and the performance of an organization.

SWARMS
An important element of the easycratic way of thinking is the belief in the power of swarms and in collective intelligence. This is a topic we'll go into in more detail in chapter 3. The easycrat is convinced that the holder of power doesn't have a monopoly on knowledge. But neither does the operational employee. The best decisions are often the ones based on all the knowledge present within the organization. And the best organization is the organization that makes optimum use of all the knowledge available. An organization is a swarm of people that has access to all kinds of knowledge and, taken together, this represents the human capital of an organization. Not making full use of this human capital is a form of economic waste that is comparable to the inefficient use of other production factors, such as raw materials or machines. A farmer who leaves half his land uncultivated or has too many tractors lying idle in his shed will be far less productive than a farmer who does make efficient use of his production factors. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the same doesnt apply to a company

that doesn't take care of its human capital. And yet this is exactly what happens in hierarchical organization structures. The very nature of

bureaucracy means that a lot of knowledge remains unused within an organization. Decisions are predominantly taken in the top levels of the hierarchy, whereby the views on a particular problem are often too restricted. If the top of the hierarchy considers the material too complex, and is of the opinion that there is not enough relevant knowledge available, external experts with the specic knowledge will generally be hired in. There's nothing wrong with experts of course, but in their xation to raise their own prole, they tend to adopt extreme viewpoints. There's hardly any topic imaginable where there aren't two camps of experts, scrambling over themselves with diametrically opposite visions and opinions. If every organization were to work like this, we'd hardly notice. Then it would be like the Olympic high jumpers all using the straddle technique. It's an exciting contest and everybody seems to jumping to great heights, until one change-minded athlete thinks up a different technique. Then it becomes immediately obvious that everyone could have jumped higher using that innovative idea. Perhaps this is a rather obvious metaphor, but many organizations copy their competitors, or continue working as they have always worked. If all airlines are accustomed to sending tickets to the customer's home, and then letting them wait in endless queues at the check-in desk, it gives the impression that all airline companies work efficiently. Until one of them (usually a newcomer to the market) has the bright idea that all paper tickets are actually redundant documents, in view of the fact that a passenger list with names that can be ticked off already exists. And that checking in is much easier online, so that the customers no longer have to wait an hour in the queue. As soon as one provider in the market introduces an innovation, the differences become painfully clear and all providers in the market typically switch quickly to the new way of working. Just like all the high jumpers who adopted the Fosbury Flop in a short space of time.

THE EASYCRACY GOAL

The example of airline companies typies the essence of easycracy. Is it really possible that twenty years ago there was nobody in the airline industry who said: Wow, that's a really cumbersome procedure, and what a lot of administration costs involved in sending tickets to customers. That doesn't happen in the railway sector does it? There must be a smarter way. And as soon as the rst airlines started selling tickets online, surely someone could have asked themselves the question: If we can sell tickets online, couldn't we get the passengers to check in online too? It's more than likely that this knowledge for improving business processes was present in the collective intelligence of a lot of airline companies long before the change actually took place. But the problem is that this kind of knowledge just doesn't penetrate to the top of the hierarchy where the decisions are taken. The goal of easycracy is to improve organizations, and to make people's work easier and more enjoyable. The primary fuel of easycracy is making better use of the knowledge that's already there. If organizations can design their procedures, decision-taking processes and organization structure in a more easycratic manner, they will increase their chances of survival. Individuals either inside or outside organizations don't have to sit and wait for that to happen, they can start tomorrow. The information society has made the tools available that enable everyone without the need for capital

investments to set workable initiatives in motion for tackling major and minor problems of all kinds, and to implement improvements. This can be done both inside and outside existing organizations, either cutting through the existing bureaucracies, or manoeuvring neatly around them, in the grey areas.

SMS replaces airline ticket at KLM

Call it coincidence or not, but on the very same day we were writing these sections on the example of airline tickets and checking in, KLM was introducing its own innovation. This is what we read the next day in the newspapers: Air France and KLM have extended their electronic boarding pass service. Customers can now check in using their mobile phone. They then receive a boarding pass via a text message (SMS), or per e-mail on a PDA. Theres no need to print it out. The boarding pass contains all the information that would appear on a standard boarding pass, including a unique barcode. The barcode is scanned at the gate and can be presented at the baggage drop-off points, the safety checkpoints, the lounges and the tax free shops at Schiphol. KLM and Air France are traditional national airline companies. This innovation enables them to make use of smart information technology to improve their service, reduce red tape and make their customers lives a little more enjoyable. And we havent even mentioned the enormous drop in their costs. Even at KLM, people are starting to think in an easycratic way.

BUT WHY?
An effective improvement will usually be quickly duplicated by others. So what benet is there to being the rst to implement it? Everyone has adopted the Fosbury Flop and they're jumping higher than ever but the gaps in level havent changed. So why should we worry ourselves about this issue? Good question! But even though innovations are picked up quickly enough by others, the pioneers continue to benet for a fairly long period. The rst one to successfully introduce an innovation will get an image boost. They gain the sympathy of their customers, sympathy on the labour market and a reputation for being a popular organization to work for. And they will even get sympathy from the supplier side as a desired partner to work with, because the image of an innovative organization will also rub off on the supplier. This image advantage usually persists for a long period, even when all competing organizations are delivering the same products using the same production methods. A far more important reason for pursuing improvement than image boosts is the threats emanating from the outside world. Many innovations originate from outside the organization, from players in other sectors. The traditional airline companies have copied the innovations introduced by newcomers to the market and are working more efficiently than ever. But despite this increase in efficiency, the competition has never been so erce due to these same newcomers. What if the traditional companies had thought up these same innovations themselves much earlier? If they had made better use of the existing collective intelligence within their own organization, those newcomers would very likely never have entered the market. It's an ironic paradox. Based on the (understandable) need to maintain the position they have gained, organizations develop a spider's web of bureaucratic procedures and rules. But that same bureaucracy has a suffocating tendency, it makes the collective intelligence inert, hinders improvements and thus serves to attract new players to the market, who then start to undermine the

positions already acquired. And things will run their course. There must be a better way the easycratic way.

THE COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE OF THIS BOOK

Shoemakers children never have shoes is an American expression used to describe situations like lung specialists who smoke, traffic police who ignore red lights, and gardeners who cover their own back garden under paving stones. It's not always that easy actually applying the theories and advice in your personal life that you proclaim in your professional life. But we have attempted to avoid this pitfall. During the creation process of this book we made thankful use of the principle of collective intelligence. Before we started writing, we organized sessions with progressive and critical thinkers from different elds. The participants in the discussions were invited because we expected them to be able to contribute useful insights from their own work experience. Formal function levels and academic titles did not play any role in this selection process. These sessions were extremely useful, augmenting the initial basic material with anecdotes, cases, new perspectives and modications to ideas. It's difficult to indicate exactly which participant in which discussion is responsible for which contribution to this book. And in many cases, the added insight was the culmination of an interactive group process.

EASYCRACY AND LIFEHACKING

Easycracy is the logical consequence of a movement called lifehacking. Lifehacking is all about getting more done in less time, which is made possible by sharing smart ICT solutions and new approaches to the concept of work. It's a combination of time management, knowledge management, web 2.0, personal development and intelligent insights. Figure 1.1 shows how the concepts of lifehacking and easycracy are linked.

lifehacking Individual

easycracy Groups of individuals Organization department

politics Society

Concern

Tools Tips Tricks

Collaborating Mobilizing

Strategy Policy Philosophy

Do it!

In practice

Theory

Pragmatic Initiatives

Start tomorrow Active

Hold a meeting Long term

Figure 1.1 The differences between lifehacking, easycracy and politics With lifehacking, the individual rst learns the art of working smarter, applies this to easycracy and then extends it. Within formal and informal networks, sharing, communicating and mobilizing are essential processes. Within networks, knowledge is offered and spread but also acquired with the aim of effecting improvements, developing innovations, or at the very least initiating the rst steps to improvement. This is possible within organizations, but also alongside organizations. And always in an active and pragmatic way. Easycracy is a vision on working and organizing, lifehacking offers the smart tools required to facilitate this.