In programming, there is an escalating scale of code development. The most basic level is machine coding, using numerical designators to provide instructions to the hardware and firmware of a computer. Machine coding is then collected into larger common strings, which can be used for real-time process control when a computer is connected to actuators that open and close mechanical and electrical connections. This language assembles common machine code sequences and is thus called “assembly” language. Letters combine to form words, words combine to form sentences.
Each “higher order” language is built from the common elements of the language beneath it. Each language type, higher in the literal pecking order, is able to expand the power of a single “word” because it is built upon so many others, which are themselves built upon so many others. That power of a higher order of “authority” can therefore address more complex purposes. In machine coding, a five number entry causes the creation of a memory location. In assembly, a five-word string opens a servo-actuator, waits the prescribed time period and then closes. All the way to object-oriented coding, where a five sentence string of code creates a user interface experience that includes graphic elements, rotating icons and pre-populated data fields.
In the military, the “chain of command” is exactly the same. From the smallest group of soldiers to the command of an entire army or fleet, each level in the hierarchy is a collation of all the elements below. The higher in the military command one goes, the more impactful are the decisions made and the more action that can be initiated by a short string of symbols, an order. A platoon leaders says, “Let’s go that way”, and a small group of people go that way. A general says, “Let’s go that way”, and 10,000 people, 1,000 tanks, 140 helicopters, 35 jets and seven mobile hospitals go that way.
In business, great emphasis is placed on escalating hierarchy, most of the time. An individual contributor (machine code) reports to a supervisor (assembly language) who reports to a manager (C++) who reports to a director (visual basic) who reports to a vice president (XML) who reports to the CEO (the user with whom the computer interfaces).
Hierarchies come with our package, and they go back as far as the first incidence of dominance behavior in a troupe of animals, so it’s no surprise that we find them in our inventions as well as our social groups. Whether an organizational structure of authority, or a language, or even a chemical process, building units of meaning out of a collection of smaller units is something we do, and do well.
But not all problems of programming or group behavior require this approach. Some challenges are better met with what might be analogous to parallel processors in computers.
For example, I belong to a martial arts group called The Kenpo Institute. We train in Kenpo, as evolved from Chinese and Okinawan arts by Edward Parker in the late 1950s. Our “dojo” is Kensington Park on Adams, every Saturday morning.
Most martial arts schools have a rigid hierarchy. The head instructor is the “Sensei”, addressed as Mr. or Ms. Everybody bows. The most experienced head of a particular school or system is the “Master”, or even “Grandmaster”. These designations and protocols are felt to be traditionally vital to teaching disciplined behavior.
We don’t subscribe to the adherence of hierarchy at the Kenpo Institute, however, which chooses its name so as to indicate an educational and research-oriented approach to the art. We may have instructors, but they are also students. The head instructor is not called “Sensei”, which is a term applied by subservient acolytes. Our instructor is called “Senseless”. This term recognizes the power of humility and humor, towards the goal of everyone achieving continual self-development through service to others and the attitude of the student. If there is no “Master”, the student is free to achieve without limits, to recognize they are their own “Master”. Our approach accelerates skill development to a much greater rate than what is customarily found in stiffly hierarchical, formal dojos.
In leadership, it may be time to realize that authoritarian hierarchies do not have to be nearly as active as we might have thought. Adopting an attitude that while individuals may have varying degrees of authority and responsibility, we are still equal humans of parallel value, places fewer limits on what people can achieve. No one is “better” than anyone else, in the biggest scheme of things. We all deserve respect. We all need to serve a purpose larger than just our own satisfaction, in order to fully experience what life has to offer.
Parallel processors brought a huge increase in speed of computation to computers. If it weren’t for this architecture and the continually improving circuitry, we would not be able to model weather systems, find protein structures suitable for specific tasks or create three-dimensional streaming video over the internet.
Leaders who adopt two simultaneous styles of leading, that is, one of occasional hierarchical authority when it’s truly necessary, and one of continual equality in problem-solving, will create effective action in a much wider range of circumstances. Parallel processing at the human scale of complexity.