A lot of good points in there. An organisation is an ecosystem that builds up and evolves according to what works best for it. If management come in and make ad hoc decisions, all they do is upset or distort the existing balance.

In the observation of my workplace, when things start to get stale the best remedy is to increase the capacity of the organisation rather than to reorganise things. Reorganisation might be good in the sense that Person X who had an easy ride compared with Person Y, has the tables turned thus achieving overall parity, however it doesn't solve any of the underlying problems. Increasing capacity on the other hand, like getting better infrastructure, improved software, more disk space, faster transmission speeds etc starts knocking down the walls that lock people's natural instincts in. Instead of doing lots of mundane tasks, it gives more time for staff to open up to more creativity, thinking and imagination.

I once wrote to a former Prime Minister in my capacity as a Customer Service Operator at an APS Call Centre.

"My Supervisor is female, my Section Manager is male, my Manager is female, the Teleservice Operations Manager is male, our CEO is female, the Department Secretary is male and the Minister is female. If I propose an idea to increase the productivity of expenditure on service delivery and the utilisation of human resources fourfold to my Supervisor, she may communicate the initiative from a female perspective to her Section Manager, who may communicate a male perspective of a female perspective of my initiative to his Manager, who may communicate a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of my initiative to the Teleservice Operations Manager, who may communicate a male perspective of a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of my initiative to the CEO, who may communicate a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of my initiative to the Secretary, who may communicate a male perspective of a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of my initiative to the Minister, who may communicate a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of a male perspective of a female perspective of my initiative to you. The chain of command operates on the irrational notion that male and female perspectives are indistinguishable, a notion with no basis in science, existing entirely as the product of intellectual fashion subordinate to informed reason. The only rational option I have is to communicate directly with you."

Smart management makes decisions by agreement between women's and men's committees.

Interesting article Brian, have not read Margaret Wheatley but have read many other business Guru’s. Most have held teaching positions and published many books on and about management. I found each had a useful thread and that an amalgam of ideas from each has served well.

The question “Has modern management a terminal illness?” is a contradiction in my view, because “modern” management does not suffer from the problems described, old style or legacy management does.

The case study cited is a bureaucracy, which are light years from a commercial/private enterprise. I was introduced in the late eighties to a paper by Professor Fenton Robb on Autopoiesis. His paper described a process of cells, “like selecting like” and resisting change in the microbiological world. His concept proposed that a similar process existed in the cognitive domain, especially within government institutions and bureaucracies.

I found this to be a remarkably powerful tool as a change manager. Bureaucracies required a completely different approach because of the political influence which has resulted in the development of organically defensive structures.

Once the key differences are understood and mitigated, the process of change from legacy to modern management is essentially the same for both bureaucracies and private enterprise.

The tools for change management today, in the hands of professional exponents, are powerful, open, benign and effective in building sustainable enterprises. These tools include enterprise mapping, entity relationship analysis, personality profiling, business process re-engineering and business knowledge distribution. These tools are designed to resolve the issues you describe and whilst the problems identified in the article are real and sadly, common, they are not insurmountable.

Rather than write “about” such organizations, perhaps we should write “to” them with a proposal to resolve their issues.