Technology has always stood at the heart of human ingenuity. Its problem-solving nature has been responsible for remarkable feats that defined eras, each characterised by a shift in how humans interact with each other. Regarding this solutionist aspect, however, Thomas P. Hughes argued that we must then be aware of its complex and varied intricacies in order to use it more efficiently. This was a warning.
As promulgated by Evgeny Morozov, with word of a third and fourth Industrial Revolutions, the premise that technology is easily controllable must be thoroughly questioned. In fact, its intrinsic uncertainty and limitation may yield “unexpected consequences that could eventually cause more damage than the problems they seek to address” (Madrigal, 2013). Within a Darwinist approach to technology, this can be explained simply as the result of evolutionary pressures. Because technological advances are much more significant than human evolution, a fundamental gap appears. One that is simultaneously epistemological and ontological.
Faced with a rift which necessarily lies beyond our comprehension, biology must adapt. Within our human societies, specifically, this creates an evolutionary need for innovation — which Darwin might call adaptability.
One such manifestation could be that of adhocracy. This is a flexible and adaptable organisational method, defined by a lack of formal structure, which fosters decisive and intuitive action. This system places itself mainly in opposition to a bureaucracy, yet a case can be made for its further differentiation from meritocracy as well. “For example, when bureaucracies face a difficult decision, the default is to defer to a senior colleague. In a meritocracy, the default is to collect more data, to debate vigorously, or both. The default in an adhocracy is to experiment—to try a course of action, receive feedback, make changes, and review progress” (McKinsey, 2015). This firmly establishes adhocracy as preferable in an unpredictable environment, such as a techno-social present and, perhaps, future.
The link between the adhocratic values and technological progress becomes, thus, apparent. Furthermore, this urgency of successful improvisation is exacerbated when faced with emerging breakthroughs in technology. Rapid compromise must be made in order to meet the equally rapidly changing demands. An interesting question thereby arises, though. Whose demands are to be met — the People’s, or the Industry’s?
Let us consider the profiles of two American presidents with diverging views — that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and that of Donald Trump. They have little in common, albeit for one important factor in this discussion: their adoption of adhocracy within their governmental structures.
Amidst a second Industrial Revolution, Roosevelt carried the United States through the Great Depression and World War II into a prosperous future, and, in so doing, redefined the role of the government. His advocacy and expansion of governmental social programs was instrumental in changing the notion of liberalism for coming generations. FDR was also responsible for the monumental New Deal, which established federal responsibility for the welfare of the U.S. economy and the American people. His administrative style, however, is described as utterly chaotic. In fact, “his favourite technique was to keep grants of authority incomplete, jurisdictions uncertain, charters overlapping. The result of this competitive theory of administration was often confusion and exasperation on the operating level” (Dallek, 1995), which accurately describes an adhocratic rule.
I would consider the results of FDR’s administration to be largely positive (with a few caveats). However, considering adhocracy’s fairly recent claim in a seemingly increasingly booming society, “the most significant transformations have only just begun: the struggle to define new power structures, new economic frameworks, new forms of authority, new modalities of being political — an entirely new social anatomy, in other words — is unfolding in front of us at this very moment” (Grima, 2012). A distinctly germane example of that is centred around the figure of Donald Trump, governing under a third (and arguably forth) Industrial Revolution, catalysed by the digital realm anchored on the Internet. As a consequential contemporary figure in the age of information, much is known about Trump. One could denounce several examples of brazen transgressions of numerous ethical and constitutional provisions. One such example is the widely publicised ‘Muslim ban’. That policy decision was not reviewed by all the sectors of the administration. In fact, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates first read the promulgation only after the executive order was posted online. After the public backlash, while administration officials tried to argue that the decree was not aimed at Muslims specifically, the president himself contradicted them. This, mounting atop a violation of the emoluments clause, as well as appointing his family members to cabinet positions, foreign policy decisions and numerous other instances, has put this president in an unprecedented position nurtured in adhocracy.
It is not hard to discern what attracts powerful figures to this kind of organisational structure. This is a system which thoroughly emphasises the power and authority of such people. Though clearly earning its merits as an advantageous choice, this may not even be a conscious one, but rather one which simply flows from the proclivities of the individual and those who surround them. But the dangers of this kind of ‘unstructure’ are abundant and must be considered going forward. When applied to important structures such as government, the choice of People or the Industry has to be made, and the answer must be made apparent. I passionately believe that, especially in a representative democracy, the People’s interests must be firmly protected. Regardless, one must recognise, categorically, that an increase in freedoms must be accompanied by a keen sense of responsibility in their handling.
Estudos Contemporâneos em Design 