Lean Management Strategies for Creative Organizations: Creacracy versus Bureaucracy

Zaharov Yurii ORCID: 0009-0005-9722-0265 Postgraduate student; Department of Sociology; Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management 'NINH' 630099, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Kamenskaya str., 56 rurkorur@gmail.com

Logunova Larisa Yur'evna ORCID: 0000-0001-8417-913X Professor; Department of Sociology; Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management 'NINH' 630099, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Kamenskaya str., 56 vinsky888@mail.ru

Introduction. The specifics of managing creative teams and organizations of creative industries are based on a new type of managerial culture — the culture of creative management and implemented in the practices of lean (understanding) management. Such guidance is aimed at stimulating the creative potential of members of the creative team, solves the tasks of protecting personnel from overloads and professional burnout, protects the authorship of a creative product, and ensures product quality at a high artistic, technical, and scientific level. Such management is based on ethical principles that determine communication with company employees, partners, customers and customers from the perspective of human-centricity, parity, solidarity, transparency of administrative work and accessibility of corporate information.

Creative management is impossible within the framework of bureaucratic organizations, creacracy is the evolutionary path of the birth of a new type of organizations, which are especially in demand in the work of creative unions, design bureaus, educational institutions and medical services. Such organizations are the result of the "turquoise evolution" of management, they are determined by the logic of overcoming the barriers of bureaucracy, the need to develop management technologies.

The "era of creativity", proclaimed by the theorists of modern management in the early 2000s, is defined as the time of transformation of the world economy into a new production system, where the leading role is played by the "growing power of ideas" (P. Coy). Thanks to the American psychologist J. Gilford ^[21], the term "creative" entered scientific circulation in the middle of the last century. At the beginning of the XXI century, creativity became a research trend in the industry, involving various types of creative activity (engineering, artistic, scientific, social). Research on the problems of creative thinking (J. Guilford), "creative industries", "creative economy" (P. Coy ^[19], J. Hawkins ^[23]), the creation of a socio-cultural space of creative cities (C. Landry ^[7], R. D. Lloyd ^[26]) has become relevant. The subject of research was determined by the growth and demand for companies in the "creative industry" that produce creative products in the socio-cultural, scientific, artistic, and technical fields. The classification of the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) identifies 44 creative professions, including architecture, IT and video games, publishing, performing arts, crafts, design, advertising, jewelry.

Creative organizations and unions employ professionals with specific skills who have special needs in realizing their creative potential and in recognizing professional achievements. The experience and subject of their professional activity require special treatment, understanding of the specifics of their work and personal characteristics, and support for creative activity. Their uniqueness opposes the principle of bureaucratic unification and is associated with the requirements of respect for their professional dignity and creative needs. Replacing one employee with another, firing recalcitrant professionals, is a hasty and short—sighted decision. In this case, it is not just a person who is replaced, but the owner of specific experience, qualifications, and knowledge. In order to preserve the unique experience of employees of creative organizations and unions, a new management culture is in demand, which today is associated with the practices of "happy management" and "joyful management". "Happy Organizations" is a product of the experience of introducing a culture of creative management in order to make employees the center of the organization, their knowledge and qualifications are the foundation of its development. This is an alternative to the bureaucratic type of management, which in its final evolutionary stage makes employees a tool to meet the needs of management.

The culture of creative management is an emerging type of new management, implemented in the development of strategies for understanding (lean) management, practices of delegating authority to their subordinates. The experience of creative management requires methodological understanding, the development of research methods for the processes and problems of the development of organizations in the creative industry. The object-subject understanding of management narrows the scope of the reality of professional interactions, especially where such object-subjectivity is not obvious.

The theoretical gap in the study of the practices of leadership of creative teams today will be filled by an analysis of the work experience of the heads of adhocratic, chaordic, halordic organizations — companies of the "green" and "turquoise" type." The innovative leaders summarized the experience of decentralization practices, restructuring bureaucratic organizations into "happy" formats. The practice of forming a non-bureaucratic organization structure based on the managerial function of delegation of authority requires further theoretical formulation in the sociology of management.

Purpose: theoretical understanding of the work experience of modern creative unions and non—bureaucratic organizations based on the foundation of the culture of creative management - creacracy.

Methodology and methods. Cultural centrism is a conceptual basis for studying the management processes of creative collectives (unions) and organizations with a non—bureaucratic form of management. Despite the growing scientific interest in this problem, management culture in sociology is still considered in isolation from the value foundations of organizations. It is not instructions and orders that regulate the norms of professional behavior of employees, but the values of corporate culture. We believe that only with a change in the value core of the organization's culture is a structural and functional transition from a bureaucratic form of management to a non-bureaucratic (creacrative) one possible. Mechanical innovations in the bureaucracy cannot improve the situation of an organization experiencing the drama of "irrational rationality." For example, the introduction of the variable "employee performance" provokes the effect of rapid activity, but usually leads to a high turnover of experienced employees, professionally dissatisfied, experiencing professional reduction. It becomes obvious that the bureaucratic way of management has almost exhausted itself, all the traditional and "innovative" recipes for such management turn out to be part of the managerial problem, and not its solution.

The study of the creacratic form of management is based on the following methodological rules:

- creative management must be viewed through the prism of culture;

- creative management practices should be understood as an instrumental part of corporate culture based on the foundation of the organization's values;

- the values of the organization are developed on the basis of the terminal meanings of the value core;

- the values of creative management are realized in the principles of understanding (lean) management in the production of creative products in the form of architectural, scientific, artistic, technological projects.

Considering the variability of creacratic organizations, we used the principle of relativism. The experience of the non-bureaucratic organizations we have studied is relative and depends on the cultural, historical and political conditions of the countries where such companies operate. The ideas expressed by practitioners and researchers and the analysis of the work experience of such companies can be criticized. But this criticism is correct from the standpoint of the philosophy of "turquoise" management. Arguments from the standpoint of the culture of bureaucracy are incorrect, they are based on a completely different management experience.

The culture of an organization protects its foundations, and if the value basis of this culture is organizational and puts the needs of the corporation and the needs of its administration at the center, then a person in such an organization will not be comfortable. The change in the structure of the value core, the crystallization of human–centered meanings in it makes it possible to switch to a new type of management - non-bureaucratic, in which employees who are ready and willing to perform their professional tasks are placed in the center of attention of the organization's management. The dominance of human-centered meanings over org-centered ones in the value core characterizes a new creacratic form of management inherent in creative organizations that make up creative industries.

Creacracy is a form of management based on the values of culture, alternative bureaucracy: human—centricity, freedom, creativity, transparency, implemented on the principles of lean or understanding management in the practices of "happy" ("joyful") management of creative projects.

Researchers and management practitioners who comprehend the work experience of human-centered companies (adhocratic, chaordic, halordic) define such organizations as "happy" or "joyful". This is a new social phenomenon of "firms without a leader". Management in these organizations is a set of chaotic (at first glance) practices devoid of rationality and allowing a minimum of control over personnel. However, these practices do not destroy the work rhythm, do not cancel responsibility to customers and partners, as they are based on the logic of forming a culture of lean management. "Firms without a leader" work in a deadline-set mode. A deeply rooted culture shared by all colleagues prevents the organization from falling apart if employees have expanded powers in solving professional tasks and are focused on the processes of professional self-realization. The culture of creacracy glues the team together, making it workable. Therefore, there is no need for a rigid hierarchical structure and control. Descriptions of the success experience of organizations with a non-bureaucratic form of management are scattered, but the original management findings have some common features of the design of management strategies that allow combining individual practices of "happy management" into a type of creative management (creacracy).

The central methodological idea of creacracy research is the synthesis of culturocentric, human–centered, value-based approaches (P. A. Sorokin, A. S. Akhiezer N. I. Lapin), the theory of value shift (p. Inglehart ^[24]), concepts of the "third wave" (E. Toffler ^{[10, 11]}), organizations of a new type (W. Bennis ^[18], F. Lalu ^[6] J. Pfeffer ^[27]). The analysis of the specifics of the application of the practices of delegation of authority, lean (understanding) is based on the experience of "firms without a leader" (R. Samler ^[9], R. Sheridan ^[17]). The work of a new type of organization is impossible without new employees with a non-bureaucratic professional consciousness, which is considered in the concepts of the creative class (R. Florida ^[20]), "neo-bohemia" (R. D. Lloyd ^[26]), the theory of human capital (J. Jacobs ^[3], T. V. Schultz ^[28]).

Comparative analysis of websites with materials devoted to the culture of creative management, secondary analysis has the ability to generalize the differences in the work of organizations of bureaucratic and non-bureaucratic types. The text uses fragments of interviews and opinions of the heads of leading companies of the "green" and "turquoise" type. The comparative analysis of the cultures of bureaucracy and creacracy is based on the experience of the authors' long-term work in bureaucratic organizations and the opinions of employees working in non-bureaucratic organizations.

So, the study is based on the methodology of cultural centrism, humanocentrism, conclusions are based on the principles of relativism, taking into account a number of methodological rules, methods of comparative analysis (cultures of bureaucracy and creacracy), secondary analysis (interviews of the heads of leading companies of the "green" and "turquoise" type) are applied.

Results. The value constraints of bureaucracy. The authorship of the sociological analysis of bureaucracy belongs to M. Weber. The sociologist defined bureaucracy as a rational and effective form of achieving organizational goals. This form of management is based on a high degree of specialization, division of labor, distribution of tasks, hierarchical structure, approval of a formal set of management rules, written documentation, depersonalization of relations between employees, fixed salary, established technology of promotion. M. Weber explained that all these elements are united by the logic of rational action ^{[1, p. 126]}. The value of a bureaucratic organization is expressed in the goal. Formal rationality, on which bureaucracy is built, is a consistent and steady desire to fulfill a goal, forcing people to behave in a purposeful way. The progressive rationality of the bureaucracy has developed its potential today and has gradually turned into an organizational pathology, overgrown with limitations for human creative activity (Table 1).

Limitations of rationality. The bureaucratic form of management, revolutionary for the XIX – early XX centuries, degenerated into the principle: "give orders and control execution, form beautiful reports for your superiors," in other words, be an "effective manager." Job descriptions are designed in such a way that the scope of responsibility in them is narrow, and the execution of instructions is focused on routine situations. Employees are almost completely interchangeable and dependent on the whims of their superiors, and are of no value to the culture of the organization. "Modern bureaucracy ... by its very nature, depersonalizes: in a rational bureaucracy, individuals are reduced to interchangeable roles. Bureaucracy throws away ease and spontaneity, personal inclinations and preferences, individual self-expression and creativity" ^{[4, p. 13]}.

A bureaucratic organization claims not only the working and non-working time of a person (for example, the time spent traveling from home to work and back), but also the time of his rest. For example, the practice of legitimate exploitation of a person's love for their profession has become established in educational institutions. Teachers and lecturers are given a "summer assignment" — to write or re-issue methodological materials, develop programs for the studied disciplines, etc. This fits into the logic of rational personnel management: achieving the goal at any cost. There is a goal (for example, to get accredited), and the price of the issue and the value of people are put out of brackets. The software development industry has gone even further, giving rise to the term "death march". "Programmers work all night, bring sleeping bags to the office, forget about the time they spend with their loved ones, and refuse vacations. Death marches often have a very sad outcome: projects are canceled before they see the light. Programmers look at the mess in their personal lives and wonder if it was worth giving it all" ^{[17, p. 18]}.

In the paradigm of rationality, this does not look like an ethical anomaly. "The highest degree of formal rationality of capital calculation is possible only when workers are subordinated to the domination of entrepreneurs" this manifests the "specific material irrationality of the economic order" ^{[1, p. 126]}. For dissatisfied employees, the mantra is fulfilled: "If you don't like it, quit, we'll find a replacement." Such corporate ethics, as a derivative of social ethics, requiring loyalty and dedication to the organization, is, in the words of W. White, a "bill of deprivation of all rights" of a person performing professional duties.

An "organization person" is an employee who agrees with the rules of bureaucracy (Table 1). He expects that the relationship between him and the organization will be long—lasting and managers will positively evaluate his dedication. He perceives his seniority and past life path as a contribution to the prosperity of the organization, and he also thinks of his future in connection with the organization. Often, the loss of this connection (for example, dismissal) means deprivation of livelihood. A professional turns into an immobile functionary who expects to be rewarded for loyalty and economic guarantees. But the firmness of such guarantees is minimal. In an employment contract, the administration always bargains for advantages. An employee subordinates his own interests and beliefs to the needs of his superiors who manage the organization.

A functionary is a structural element of a bureaucratic organization, he "knows his place", performs actions prescribed by job descriptions. None of his superiors are interested in his satisfaction with his professional activities. The practical experience of R. Samler, who changed the bureaucratic management structure at Semco Corporation (a leading enterprise in Latin America where employees produce industrial equipment and provide services for its maintenance), gives grounds to summarize the "achievements" of the traditional form of leadership. "The sad truth is that employees of modern corporations have very few reasons to feel satisfied, even less in demand. ... In addition, companies usually ruthlessly dismiss employees when they approach retirement age or experience temporary setbacks" ^{[9, c 133]}. This approach is rational, international and practically universal for bureaucratic organizations. At its highest level, the rationality of bureaucracy becomes a brake on, in fact, rationality, transforming into irrational rationality, provoking a chain of subsequent restrictions.

Limitations of the hierarchy. "A pyramid-shaped management structure with the concentration of power in the hands of a few is good for solving routine tasks. But in situations with a changing reality, the operation of the bureaucratic mechanism is problematic," says U. G. Bennis ^{[18, pp. 13-35]}. The work of a functioning employee is not evaluated in terms of his benefit, initiative or the fundamental nature of the solved professional tasks. The assessment of the "effectiveness" of his work boils down to how accurately he follows official instructions. In the classic work "The Organizational Man" (1956), W. H. White proves the restraining influence of the organization on individuality and creativity. He concludes: the bureaucracy has brought up a generation of service people, mediocre people, "solvers". This is the result of the implementation of the principles of "social ethics" — "the existing body of ideas that makes morally legitimate the pressures of society directed against the individual." This type of ethics is based on faith in the group as a source of creativity, faith in belonging as the highest need of the individual, faith in the applicability of science to achieve this belonging ^{[13, p. 285]}.

E. Toffler compiled the following epicrisis for the organization's man. "The hierarchy vested with power, through which the administration operated, had a whip with which it was possible to keep an individual in line. Realizing that his relationship with the organization would be relatively permanent (or at least hoping for it), the person of the organization sought her approval. Rewards and punishments went down the hierarchy, and the person who usually looks up at the next step of the hierarchical ladder gradually got used to submission and obsequiousness. The system formed a weak, indecisive functionary, prone to empty conversations, a person without personal beliefs or who did not dare to express them. His conformity was paid for" ^{[10, p. 167]}.

The bureaucratic hierarchy is a system of barriers separating those who "make decisions" from those who carry them out. A typical corporate bureaucracy artificially restricts the exchange of information and decision-making powers. Most of the information from bureaucrats has the status of secrecy. In particularly clinical cases, employees cannot even get up-to-date information about the work and movements of the boss: they are given a minimum of information necessary for work, mainly of an administrative nature.

These cognitive boundaries cannot be crossed by an ordinary employee who will never become involved not only in management, but also in the work of the organization as a whole. He is usually excluded from the products of his labor, they are privatized by the boss, who reports to higher managers on the achievements of departments, departments, workshops, etc. Only the most loyal functionaries can expect awards. Decisions are made for the employee and without the employee. And, most importantly, not for the employee. The person concludes that he is not allowed to take part in decision-making. "In most companies, clients are escorted past office cells into a conference room with closing doors, behind which important decisions are made. These closed meeting rooms send a powerful message: if you are on the other side of the door, you have no right to participate in the discussion. In other words, "you are not as important as I am," sums up R. Sheridan, founder of the American company Menlo Innovations, which produces software for all industries and the leisure and entertainment industry ^{[17, p. 59]}.

The reason for such boundaries is the bureaucrat's fear of sharing authority. The essence of fear is the anxiety that an employee will understand: in reality, an official is not needed at all in order for an employee to make an adequate decision regarding the fulfillment of his professional tasks. The results of a study by Tower Watson, a firm specializing in consulting in the field of personnel management, were called a "disgrace of management". In 2012, consultants surveyed the opinions of 32,000 employees in 29 countries using a survey method. It was revealed that only 35% of employees are actively involved in the work process, almost half (43%) are indifferent to what they are doing or actively distance themselves from their work. The remaining 22% did not feel any support from the management. And this is practically the norm. Similar studies are conducted annually, and in some years the results are even worse. Such bureaucratic pathologies are directly related to a series of political games, endless meetings, an avalanche of information noise associated with secrecy in the field of important information, wishful thinking, ignoring problems, ... erecting barriers between functional divisions of the company and internal corporate struggle, concentration of power ^{[6, pp. 71, 83]}.

Smart bureaucrats understand the limitations of a rigid bureaucracy. The idea of changing the traditional hierarchical structure of the company is gradually finding a response among managers around the world. "Instrumental rationality is beginning to give way to value rationality," states R. Inglehart ^{[4, p. 82]}. M. Young, co-founder of the British consulting company Future Considerations, believes that large corporations are trying to decentralize the decision-making process in small divisions or branches or otherwise introduce democratic principles, for example, by holding open meetings, the participants of which determine the agenda themselves.

Control restrictions. The heads of different levels of the hierarchical structure in bureaucratic organizations try to keep everything under control. The fear of the administrative apparatus losing control over subordinates overrides the meaning of production activities and provokes irrational activity. The number of meetings and reporting is increasing, and a longer ladder of hierarchy levels is being built, where at each step there is a leader who collects his reports. As a result, one employee is managed by several bosses with a single control function, who receive a more substantial salary than the working person. The meaning of the manager's work is "working with the hands of others and for others" ^{[12, p. 298]}. S. N. Parkinson, an expert on the bureaucratic system, testifies: "British universities spend from six to ten percent of their cash on the maintenance of administrators. ... There are institutions where much more money is spent on management than on everything else" ^{[8, p. 130]}.

An employee in a bureaucratic organization is not much different from a slave on plantations: the products of his labor are used by administrators-supervisors. Bureaucratic decisions, especially those devoid of meaning and logic from the point of view of employees "on the ground", require enforcement, therefore, control. And more resources are spent on control than on fulfilling the real purpose for which the organization was created. But all bureaucratic efforts aimed at controlling a working person turn into a problem for customers, clients, buyers: tuition fees at the university, the cost of the project, services, etc. increase. "Trying to take control of the situation, we observed only an increase in the number of procedures: there were more meetings, more commissions, or simply more levels of hierarchy. These efforts, despite good intentions, increase the cost of the project, the amount of work and documentation, but do not significantly affect the interaction of employees, their productivity and the quality of the final result" ^{[16, p. 38]}.

In parallel with the strengthening of control, the process of reproduction of the administrative apparatus is underway. Officials, according to S. Parkinson's testimony, multiply exponentially: where one person handled the volume of work yesterday, four people will be sitting tomorrow who cannot handle the same volume. Deputy ministers, vice presidents, senior vice presidents, executive vice presidents, junior and senior directors, etc. multiply by the simplest division. "Employees really multiply according to the law that regulates the expansion of their departments. ... Annual staff growth (meaning administrative) of 5-6% is the norm. In order to convince everyone of their importance and necessity, they come up with different forms of reporting, flooding subordinates with instructions, increasing the amount of paperwork. The "sea of paper" is generated by the over-centralization that bureaucracy strives for" ^{[8, p. 171]}. R. Samler is ironic about this: "Bureaucracy is built by people and for people who are engaged in proving that they are necessary, especially when they themselves suspect that they can be dispensed with."

"At the top" decisions are made for those who are "at the bottom" and have the real situation and knowledge. Managers "at the top" put on an omniscient look, issuing instructions, while "at the bottom" colleagues who really know something are working like convicts. But the managers are not going to take grassroots workers as experts (they "have moustaches themselves!"). For example, modern educational institutions, especially universities, are torn apart by the contradiction between the declared creative content of teachers' work and managerial clutches progressing in ingenuity. Managers and administrators, sometimes far from the experience of scientific and teaching activities, strenuously monitor professionals. The background of these "effective managers" indicates that they came to the leadership of education according to the nomenclature-bureaucratic principle, and not on the basis of meritocratic achievements in the field of broadcasting social experience to younger generations. In European universities, these processes are called "moral collapse". Analysts observe how the number of administrators is growing who have no idea what a university is as an educational institution, and what it should be ^[29].

Modern managers have atrophied the ability to share authority and trust situational decision-making to professional performers. "I am sure that, in addition to money and benefits, for most CEOs, company management is also a kind of sport: new strategies and products, mountains of numbers, risk and the opportunity to manage the lives of other people. It's like commanding an army" ^{[9, p. 311]}. The scope of instructions is a legitimate prohibition on an employee making decisions in situations that require originality of actions. The "professionalization" of the manager and the craving for a more practical education are part of the same phenomenon. Just as the student today considers the method more important for life than the content of knowledge, so the manager sees management as an end in itself, considering expertise relatively independent of the content of what he manages. And the reasons are the same in both cases. The same is the case in other social institutions of modern society. Despite all the differences in particulars, the growing adaptation of individuals to the needs of society prevails — and the growing desire to somehow justify it" ^{[12, p. 267]}. The activities specified by the instructions are easy to control. But narrow specialization and division of labor leads to difficulties in solving non-standard tasks generated by situations of uncertainty that require broad powers at the grassroots levels of the organization. Job descriptions work in situations of solving relatively routine problems and standard understanding of them, and a grassroots functionary will not dare to risk violating the instructions.

Limitation of creativity. "Bureaucracy tends to jam the new" ^{[4, p. 12]}. The bureaucratic authorities are least interested in the creative growth of an employee. Talent, which, in fact, is valuable (irrational), and not rational, becomes an obstacle to communication between a subordinate and a boss. Innovations, critical thinking, and self-expression are declared by the bureaucracy, but, as a rule, are not required. Any deviation from the rules, creativity, manifestation of personal qualities in reality is not encouraged, as it comes into conflict with the predictability of the organization's work, which is not canceled even in "conditions of uncertainty". It is precisely such "objects" that are at the center of scientific reflection in modern sociology of organization and sociology of management.

Bureaucracy stands on four pillars: management tools: stability, hierarchy, division of labor, artificial fear instilled in employees. Fear is an important tool for managing people. The manager is looking for stability for himself (how else can the points about "golden parachutes" be regarded in the contracts of top managers?!), but keeps the subordinate in a state of uncertainty of his position so that he constantly feels his precarity (the threat of dismissal at any moment: after balancing with "road maps", optimization or any other for a formal reason). Fear forces a person to act, in a bureaucratic sense: "it is more effective to work for a manager."

Fear is one of the most skillful mind killers. But the fear that employees are in is expensive. In the physiology of the work of a frightened organism, there is only room for the functions of basic behavior and protection of one's safety. The fear-filled brain blocks a person's access to creativity, paralyzes when adaptation to innovation is required. The employee becomes obedient, loyal and initiative-free.

An administrator who has made an obedient, coordinated team of easily replaceable functionaries out of his employees can celebrate victory. "A creative person is not clear to him, as well as the conditions of creativity are unclear. Chaotic intuition, aimless thoughts, impractical questions — all these things, which often accompany discovery, are organically alien to the administrator's world. Order, objective goals, consent — that's what he wants" ^{[13, pp. 263-264]}. But focusing on consent is killing creativity. The novelty of a creative idea undermines the current consensus of a group that resists everything that separates it. W. White proved that the belief that a group of people acting in concert is an instrument of creativity is a myth.

Stability limitations. Bureaucracy is the personification of constancy, the creation and bulwark of stability. Permanence is once destroyed by life, which is a stream of change. Resistance to the laws of life has no meaning. The triumph of the bureaucracy, unable to adapt to rapid social change, is becoming a thing of the past. The limitation of the "power of the table" (J. K. Gurney) is determined by the finiteness of the stability on which this "table" rests. Predicting the demise of bureaucracy, W. Bennis called for looking "beyond bureaucracy" and outlined the contours of the organizations that will replace it.

For all the progressiveness of the idea of bureaucracy and its early development, this form of management suffers a systemic crisis with universal features: organizations have lost their target, but at the same time continue to grow, devour resources, corrupt people and destroy the environment. Bureaucracy and the dominance of effective management have turned schools into soulless educational platforms where students and teachers go to please their superiors with reports. "Effective managers" have turned hospitals into cold bureaucratic institutions where doctors and nurses are deprived of the opportunity to take heartfelt care of patients: they only have enough time to fulfill their professional duties.For rebranding, variables such as "efficiency" and "optimization" are invented, which not only do not strengthen organizations, but also contribute to staff turnover and deviation from the chosen rational goal, inconveniences for customers. Bureaucratic organizations are falling into decline because the form of leadership is based on strict control, attempts to develop, keeping everything unchanged. This paradox, embedded in the system of bureaucracy, determined its finiteness. These are symptoms of the disease of the culture of the organization, an inoperable tumor of irrational rationality, which is called the pinnacle of the achievements of bureaucracy as a form of management.

Table 1 — The difference between management in organizations of bureaucratic and non-bureaucratic (creacratic) type, comparative analysis

Culture begins with values and ends with behavioral rituals. The organization itself is a product of culture, the result of the design of the rules of human behavior. The culture of bureaucratic organizations is an established system of values, norms, and rituals. Such a culture may be "alive" or "dead" to some extent, but it sanctifies the work of the organization and determines the vitality of the organization. If there are "living" values in the culture, working to update norms and rules, the organization will remain operational, actively "shaking up" all structural elements and divisions, conducting rebranding, defining new tasks. If the main emphasis in the organization is on rituals, then the culture dies out, the organization eventually disbanded. Not all bureaucratic organizations are on such a threshold of "death" of their culture. There are organizations with an active culture that fills the work of employees with lively meanings. Nevertheless, the limitations created by the rules of the culture of a bureaucratic organization determine its finiteness, the "limit of bureaucracy". The meaning of restrictions is the transformation of a culture of creating products of activity into a culture of fear, characteristic of a mature bureaucracy. The logic of the development of the organizational form of social life leads to the birth of a new non-bureaucratic type of organizations.

Discussion of the results. W. Bennis, who predicted the collapse of the bureaucracy, relied on the effectiveness of the management system in organizations of a new type. The organizations of the future, in his opinion, are "adaptive, rapidly changing time systems." Creativity is a key quality of an adaptive organizational structure, focused not on a rational goal, but on results. The birth of these organizations is evidence of the collapse of the bureaucracy ^[18].

The concept of a new type of organization has been around for more than twenty years. However, the terminology dictionary for the name of "organizations of the future" has not yet been developed, there are no scientific definitions for new management practices. Researchers use metaphors: cellular structure, self-coordination, auto-coordination, matrix, ad hoc. Advertiser L. Vanderman defined the essence of such organizations: "United groups acting as intelligent commandos (amphibious units) will be... to change hierarchical structures" ^{[10, p. 154]}. F. Lalu called the logic of the emergence of such organizations "turquoise evolution". Based on interviews with employees of organizations of this type, he studied the "creative soul" — the culture of "green" and "turquoise" organizations in which true self-realization of employees is possible. F. Lalu, in his study of non-bureaucratic organizations, combined philosophy, wisdom of the world, psychology into a single discussion about the evolution of self-awareness of people organized into creative trade unions. for success and profit, but for self-disclosure, self-realization. His sample included 12 organizations that operate on the basis of the principle of lean management: retail companies, manufacturing enterprises, one energy company, a food manufacturer, a school, and a group of hospitals. These organizations have overcome the limitations of bureaucratic culture and built a variable management structure without bureaucracy. A detailed research project is presented, the analysis of which is based on issues corresponding to the selected indicators — forty-five methods of work and internal processes, which are usually discussed in studies of firms, companies, corporations ^[6].

In F. Laloux's research, we are talking about a new understanding of the meaning of achievements and failures, about the "turquoise" philosophy and the original cultural paradigm in the science of management. It consists in an innovative definition of the evolutionary purpose of the organization in terms of content: work is a way of personal and collective disclosure towards one's own true nature. "We come to the conclusion that even if something unforeseen happens or we make mistakes, everything will turn out right in the end. ... When making decisions, we rise from external stimuli to internal ones. Now we are concerned about internal rightness, which means that completely different questions arise: is this decision fair? Am I true to myself? Will I be able to fulfill my destiny? Will I serve the world?" ^{[6, p. 63]}.

Organizations of a new type (green, turquoise) are built on the basis of wisdom that exists outside the sphere of rationality. As a result of laboratory experiments, the "turquoise" K. Graves employees offered more solutions to the proposed tasks, spending on average less time on it. And these were better solutions. This became possible as a result of a fundamental change in the approach to power and management — trust in employees, which cancels control. The trust realized in the functional practices of delegation of authority has become a leading characteristic of the creacratic form of leadership. R. Samler defined the integrating business value of the culture of creative management by the concept of "joy".

The specifics of non—bureaucratic organizations are the creativity of employees at all levels, of all specialties, the emphasis in management is on the self—realization of colleagues. Creative unions and design bureaus basically cannot work on the basis of bureaucratic principles at all. Organizations are in demand where employees would not be under constant stress, where instead of professional burnout they would reveal their creative potential. These are organizations in which work is satisfying and full of true meaning. A creative organization is not only about fulfilling the tasks of the creative industry. The very creation of such organizations is the essence of social creativity.

Organizations of a new type (non-bureaucratic) have a creacratic form of management. This type includes chaordic, halordic, and adhocratic organizations. They are united by a cellular non-hierarchical structure, temporality (being created for projects) or constant evolution (self-renewal), caring for employees, managerial principles of delegation of authority in different variations of strategies, coordination, support (Table 1). Flexibility, plasticity of the structure of organizations is manifested in the non-linearity of relations between departments (teams, cells) and management. Subordination relationships between employees are not rigidly fixed and are fundamentally changeable. When implementing several projects within the same company, the same specialist may occupy a different position in the subordination structure for each project. Management is based on a "nodal" scheme: the organization acts as a kind of "network" in which all structural, creative, and work processes are concentrated around the main "nodes". The centers of these nodes are key employees ^{[5, 152]}. For example, the structure of the Buurtzorg Nederland company, whose employees care for the disabled and elderly at home, was defined by Dutch management professor S. S. Nandram as an "integrating simplification" based on a flat structure and the use of information technology.

Chaordic organizations are trending today. The founder of this type of management is considered to be an ardent opponent of the organizational hierarchy, D. G. Hawk. He proved that it is possible to lead without bureaucratic tricks. His management ideology is a complete alternative to bureaucracy ^[16], implemented in the Visa Inc system he created. D. G. Hawk explains that he created the organization in 2 years, and then "brought it to mind" for another 14 years, then left the post of CEO. His idea was a creative response to observations about the problems of modern organizations. The manager's observations confirmed his opinion that the era of the global decline of bureaucracy has come. He created an organization with an original form of management. Defining the form of management at Visa Inc, D. G. Hock stated: "We are dealing with something completely incomprehensible."

The idea of a chaordic form of management was to merge the incompatible: disorganization and ordering. This is indicated by the construction of the term denoting the fusion of chaos and order (chaord: "chaos" + "order" order). This type of creacracy is based on the fusion of opposing ideologies in management, which ensure equality in the team of employees, division of responsibility, unity of goals and principles of all structural divisions. The chaordic form of management imitates nature: in a healthy natural system, control is evenly distributed, and changes occur continuously. Chaos takes the form of order without turning into bureaucracy. In the chaordic company Semco, R. Samler carried out the reconstruction of the former bureaucratic structure: "After analyzing the situation, we nullified the bureaucracy, reducing twelve levels of management to three, and in order to replace the traditional and sedentary corporate pyramid, we developed a new structure based on a number of concentric circles. We have also changed the way we interact between departments. If one department does not want to use the services of another, it may well go outside the company and use the services of third parties." ^{[9, p. 19]}. The work of such organizations is not designed for long-term, because they are created in a situation of uncertainty and impermanence. This means that the organization must be flexible, constantly adapting to social changes, and organizationally fluid.

With chaotic management, the boss cannot shift responsibility for failures to subordinates and receive bonuses and bonuses for the well-coordinated work of the entire team. D. G. Hawk emphasizes, "clear, meaningful goals and high ethical principles for all participants in the system should be the essence in any relationship and in any organization" ^{[22, p. 67]}.

Adhocratic organizations are in tune with modernity — the era of transitivity, saturated with situations of uncertainty. The constructed term "adhocracy" (Latin ad hoc, for this, on occasion, + Greek. kratos, power) defines the power of intellectuals gathered to solve a certain creative task. If employees of different qualifications and professional levels work in chaordic and chalocratic organizations, then organizations with adhocratic self-government unite "masters". A professional involved in the creation of design, technical, scientific projects, and artistic products is the main actor in a new type of organization.

The structure of adhocratic organizations is cellular. The team members are united by the general idea of the project implementation, around which the fulfillment of a professional task is framed. After the creation of the project, the adhocratic organization may cease to exist or reorganize into another ad hoc structure. Specialists move between services, they are not tied to a specific structure." In the process of working on a project, various new cells can be created sequentially, which are necessary to solve tasks at certain stages of the project. During the entire process, employees can leave their groups and join other structures as experts or performers. Creativity is both a mechanism and the main feature of adhocracy.

Project management ("operational management", "wandering management") is gradually becoming a common practice in companies belonging to the creative industries. It is built on management without bureaucracy, decision-making without meetings. The new form of management is defined as a special art of management — "happy management". A managerial ideology is gradually emerging as the basis for the work of creative industries organizations.

The cells are managed by the project coordinator. He has the rights of a figurehead with the functions of selecting professionals for the team, facilitating and coordinating relations between teams, he creates conditions for the creativity of the team and determines the essence of the organizational task, usually of a short-term nature. The coordinator initiates the actions of the cell teams, builds interactions between professionals, but then the work goes on in auto-coordination mode, the interaction of colleagues is regulated by agreements on deadlines and remuneration. R. Samler, who radically changed the management structure at Semco, reflects on the format and meaning of his directorship: "Now I'm just one of the advisers, although my job hasn't changed in general: I'm still pushing the company to keep moving. I lobby for everything I believe in. I step in when I come to the conclusion that I can be useful, and step aside when I lose interest in the problem or when other advisers get tired of me. I only attend meetings held on Tuesdays when they invite me; this happens every two to three weeks. In other cases, they manage on their own" ^{[9, p. 308]}.

The authority of the head is limited by time limits. An example of the leadership of an adhocratic organization is the board of Namaste Solar, whose employees are engaged in the installation and maintenance of photovoltaic solar panels (Boulder, Colorado, USA). These are seven people, of whom five are full-time employees, two are invited specialists. The management is elected every two years, and the CEO is re-elected annually.

W. Bennis suggested that in the new management system, social differentiation will not be formed vertically (in terms of rank). In adhocratic organizations, a flexible structure is built on the principle of egalitarianism: the group is headed by someone who is able to better understand the details of the task, have special knowledge to perform it and take responsibility for the work of a group of professionals specially invited for this purpose. The flexibility of the structure is manifested in the work of publishing companies, where the same employee in one of the publications can act as an editor and have employees subordinate to him, in another publication he can be the author of individual publications and report to another editor. Such subordination may be cross-linked if both of these editors publish articles in each other's publications. Hierarchy in its traditional sense turns out to be violated, but this is not a problem for a creative company ^[5].

The creation of cell teams is typical for the work of computer companies, engineering, design, and scientific projects. Menlo Innovations (Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA) is an atypical technology company. R. Sheridan, its CEO and co—founder, created an organization in which cooperation and innovation are valued above all else. Over the 14 years of their work, the company's employees have graced the cover of Forbes, appeared on the pages of The Wall Street Journal, won a lot of awards, and were among the 500 fastest growing private companies in America. The company does not like bulky management systems. Teams are pairs of employees working on individual projects. The budget and work plan of each project looks like a board in the middle of the office, divided into cells (days and weeks), with task cards, according to the time intensity of the tasks. A limited number of cards are placed on the board, corresponding to the number of days and the budget of the project. Additional tasks that are offered to a team member must be coordinated with other teams. The task and deadline board allows employees to see each other's work, understand their progress and the tasks they will have to work on in the future. This is a form of visual understanding of the work of one's own and colleagues.

In adhocratic organizations, an employee has a fluid status, his position and collegial relationships are constantly updated. The focus is on the human members of the team, not on maintaining a hierarchical structure. As part of the work of these organizations, the requirement to create conditions for the professional growth of project team members is cultivated. Therefore, formalization takes a minimum of space and time, which indicates the creative work of a team of professionals. "The first thing I did at Semco was to throw away all the instructions. ... Today, new Semco employees receive only a 20-page booklet, which we call the “Survival Guide.” There are a lot of drawings and few words in it. The main idea is to use common sense. Many companies have entire divisions that produce mountains of documents to control employees" ^{[9, pp. 16-17]}.

The growth of ad hoc formations, E. Toffler notes, is associated with a high rate of change in society. In times of relative stability, people solve routine tasks, their daily lives are predictable, and the work of organizations is relatively unchanged. If social changes entail rapid changes in life, there are more problems that arise for the first time. Traditional forms of organization can no longer meet new conditions, it is no longer possible to solve new tasks in the old-fashioned way. "We are on the way from bureaucracy to adhocracy," the futurist summarizes ^{[11, p. 156]}.

Holacracy (ordered chaos) is an operational model of an organization. This is the invention of the American entrepreneur B. Robertson, who became disillusioned with the work of bureaucratic organizations. Based on the experience of the logic "in spite of, not because of" in the 1990s, he and his colleagues founded the Ternary Software company for developing software for Google Cloud (Exton, Pennsylvania, USA). At first it was a "crazy experiment", until an interconnected set of structures and internal processes were formed, included in the management of the company's work — holacracy. Subsequently, B. Robertson created a consulting and training company under the brand "HolacracyOne", which develops and distributes the experience of holacratic principles of leadership. For all the aggressiveness of the Americans' implementation of something by their fanatically convinced coaches, the holacracy system is an original non-bureaucratic management idea suitable for the modern IT industry.

Holacratic organizations consist of self-organizing teams and do not have a management hierarchy. Holacracy is an extensive structure of nested and contiguous "circles" reinforced by the double bond of colleagues' responsibilities, rather than a boss—subordinate relationship. At Ternary Software, teams ("circles") are autonomous: colleagues independently discuss and make decisions regarding roles and responsibilities within the team, obligations of team members to each other, etc. "The auxiliary circle chooses its representative in the overlying circle, who is present at all meetings of this circle, and the overlying circle has its representative for participation in all discussions within the auxiliary circle. ... The result is a structure that allows you to break complex goals into smaller parts, forming a hierarchy of goals, complexity and volume, but not a hierarchy of employees and authorities" ^{[6, p. 390]}.

The structure of holacracy's operational management processes consists of an "operating system upgrade" and "applications" compatible with the operating system. If the operating management system is universal — universal responsibility based on delegation of authority for all organizations with a halocratic specific form of management, then applications are situational, they need to be adapted to each specific organization. Today, this type of management is used by large and small, commercial and non-profit enterprises in different countries (USA, France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Russia, Great Britain). Despite the ambiguity of the internal corporate culture, built on faith in holacratic possibilities, this is an interesting basis for the organization of lean management, which can take different forms, adapt to the conditions and specifics of the organization.

In project organizations structured as honeycombs based on the qualifications and experience of professionals working in them, a characteristic feature of the organization's management structure is its focus on the person. The importance of each professional is high. For organizations of a non-bureaucratic type of management, the value is not the goal that the management seeks to achieve, but the employee who generates new ideas is able to become the organizer and ideologue of the implementation of these ideas. The goal is mediated by ideas. Project teams are often organized around talented employees based on their creativity and charisma. They become "think tanks". For organizations of a new type, employees with a new non-bureaucratic value system are also in demand.

A new employee of the organizations of the future. The ideal of bureaucracy is an "organizational person" who has abandoned the primacy of personality in favor of the principles of "social ethics". W. White defined the key concepts of social ethics using the categories "adaptation", "adaptation", "socially oriented behavior", "belonging", "acquisition of social skills", "teamwork", "group lifestyle", "loyalty to the group", "group thinking", "group creativity" ^[29].

Bureaucracy orients a person to prioritize the value and significance of society over individuals, proclaims the rights of the collective above human rights, and demands that personal characteristics be sacrificed to cultural uniformity. An organizational person is an ideal type whose actions are adequate to bureaucratic management: he shows "dynamic conformism", is ardently devoted to the group, is ready to obey the leader and agrees with the pressure of the group. The drama of a professional lies in the fact that he is forced to agree to the terms of the bureaucracy in order to ensure a decent standard of living. Such conformism contributes to the formation of a new anthropological type — the "organization man" with the characteristics of passivity, the search for support in external institutions, personal irresponsibility, obsessive craving for belonging and obedience to external pressures ^{[13, p. 268]}. A bureaucrat does not care about a person's plans and hopes. He is the same person of the organization as his subordinates, he has his own plans, which he protects with "administrative" resources, ensuring the fulfillment of the interests of a higher bureaucrat. The organization, represented by top managers, will always side with the bureaucracy. The organization will "take into account the interests of the employee only in the form in which it interprets them" ^{[14, p. 75]}.

At. White offers an original solution to the human problem in the organization: "Thousands of studies have proceeded from the adaptation of an individual to a group, but what about the adaptation of a group to an individual?" ^{[14, p. 75]}. Is it really necessary for a creative person, a scientist, a talented engineer to focus on the company and its interests? If a self-sufficient person in a professional and personal sense did not want to lie down in the Procrustean bed of interests of an administrator-bureaucrat, then it is incorrect to call him unfit or maladaptive. Integration into a group does not meet the interests of a professional, he will not allow the organization to use itself, protecting professional dignity. In situations of uncertainty, there are more and more such organizationally "disobedient" workers. Therefore, it is necessary to build the structures of organizations so that they listen to the interests of a person, allow him to professionally self-actualize, adapt to his needs in order to achieve results, goals, and develop sustainably without being afraid of change. It should be a new organization based on new principles of corporate culture. And the managers realized this, creating firms and companies of a new type, where new professionals began to work. "The era of using people as means of production is coming to an end," says R. Samler, head of Semco ^{[9, p. 133]}.

The new management has changed institutionally since the 1990s. The priority is the emphasis on piecework remuneration; orientation to customer satisfaction. This requires the coordinated work of a team of professionals and new management methods: decentralization of power, parity nonlinear relationships of employees in the organization ^{[25, pp. 24-26]}. The "person of the organization" who functions for the benefit of the management of this organization is replaced by an associate employee who works for his own benefit and pleasure.

An "associate" (from the English "associate", affiliated) is a colleague, partner, equal in cooperation, and not a subordinate serving the interests of the company. The functionary is looking for confirmation of qualifications, status and respect within the organization. An associated person seeks confirmation of his success and respect within his personal structures — for himself (Table 1). He welcomes risk, seeks to gain status outside organizations, relying on his knowledge and qualifications. The emergence of new employees for new organizations is a natural phenomenon, which means a shift in the logic of the development of power structures, a transition from vertical hierarchical structures to new communication associations with predominantly non—linear subordination. In organizations that build their structure according to a new type, colleagues are called in a new way: "joint marketing managers", "research partners", "assistant directors". E. Toffler writes that "unlike a functionary who held a subordinate position in relation to the organization, for an Associated person the organization is almost indifferent" ^{[11, p. 172]}.

An associate has many professional contacts, he can cooperate with different organizations, but does not join or take root in any company. "He wants to use his skills and creative energy to solve problems using the organization's equipment while inside temporary associations created by it. But he does this insofar as the problems interest him personally. He has obligations towards his own career, to his own sense of self-satisfaction" ^{[11, p. 171]}. L. Barnes, vice president of development at Geonetric (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA) believes that "people themselves know how they want to build their own they don't need any guidance from the management."

The new qualities of an Associated Person correspond to the fluidity and volatility of the workplace, the need to change the relationship of qualified employees with their superiors. The efforts of the bureaucracy to create large organizations in which it is easier to build and maintain a hierarchy are understandable. E. Toffler describes the modern great revolution as a confrontation between agents of the Second and Third Waves of power. The process of forming a new type of organization can be locally hindered, but it is pointless to oppose it totally. The emergence of new forms of management is the creation of a creative territory where professionals can combine their knowledge and qualifications to create unique projects without seeking help from top managers.

With the advent of the "Associated Person", a new anthropological type is being formed. Today, a new social class of people working in the creative and cultural industries has emerged, which has a key feature — creativity of professional activity. According to sociologists (A. Gouldner ^[2], O. Toffler ^[11], R. Florida ^[20]), the creative class has special requirements for the arrangement of its daily life, specific needs for the organization of work and recreation. "Creativity is an intellectual position and a certain approach to problems that reveals a range of possibilities" ^{[7, p. 37]}. R. Florida considers creativity to be the driving force of economic development. In his opinion, the creative class occupies a dominant position in society today. "The creative class has sufficient power, talents and human resources to play a leading role in the renewal of the world" ^{[15, p. 11, 14]}.

Representatives of the creative class perform creative tasks, their property is unique ideas that are implemented in various kinds of engineering and socio-cultural projects. They professionally "flourish" in "happy type" organizations, where managers take into account the characteristics of the "new class" ("new elite", representatives of the "third wave") when forming management strategies.

Conclusion. Organizations operating on the basis of a creacratic type of management are created as a natural process associated with a rapid increase in the intensity of social change. In situations of uncertainty, it is difficult to solve routine tasks in the traditional way. Bureaucratic methods have no effect, regardless of the efforts of "effective managers" to mobilize employees for the "efficiency" of completing tasks. This kind of efficiency is in principle impossible if an ordinary employee is excluded from participation in decision—making, from important information, the possession of which is the prerogative of the authorities.

The formation of a new type of non—bureaucratic organization begins with culture - the value basis of the professional activity of employees, which determines the norms of their interactions with each other, with customers, partners, and management. Non-bureaucratic organizations have a similar form of governance based on the principle of trust: self-government, design of management strategies. Creacracy, as a form of management of a team of professionals engaged in solving non-standard tasks, relies on the functions of coordination, communication, and delegation of authority. The rejection of the bureaucratic structure looks variable depending on the scale of the organization: small project—type organizations use an adhocratic type of management, large corporations use a chaordic type.

The creacratic form of management is centered on a person with knowledge adequate to the fulfillment of project tasks. Such an organization has a cellular structure, the temporally variable nature of the work of employees in them. The principles of the creacratic form of management are determined by the rules of lean (understanding) management: responsibility for colleagues, employee involvement in life and building corporate strategies, support for creativity, reliance on staff self-organization, accessibility of any corporate information. This form of management is called "joyful" or "happy". This is an alternative to bureaucratic organizations created for centuries, established in a harmonious hierarchical structure, where the members of the hierarchy work for a single rational goal.

Organizations with a creacratic form of management are characterized by a focus on evolution, plasticity of social roles (responsibilities) of employees, flexibility of a non-hierarchical structure, adaptability to a high rate of change. Creacracy is adequate for organizations belonging to the creative industries, but the experience of using this form of management allows us to speak about the universality of a lean management approach in different areas of production and business.

Organizations of a new type are introducing a "turquoise" philosophy, on the postulates of which interactions between professionals and representatives of corporate management are built. This is the foundation for the formation of a culture of creative management, which defines the foundations of lean management. This form of management is necessary for the "Associated Person", who today replaces the person of the organization. The "associated person" carries the culture of a new type of management — the culture of creacracy. Creative-minded specialists with specific needs in the organization of work and daily life come to the new type of organization. Creacracy is formed on the basis of turquoise philosophy, culture of creative management, principles of lean management, self-organization.