Cathleen Benko and Molly Anderson’s The Corporate Lattice: A book review by Bob Morris
The Corporate Lattice: Achieving High Performance in the Changing World of Work
Cathleen Benko and Molly Anderson
Harvard Business Press (2010)
Two recent inflection points reflect major changes in the contemporary business world: one involves the replacement of the command-and-control management style with one that affirms authenticity, transparency, empathy, and other qualities once considered “soft”; the other involves the replacement of what Cathleen Benko and Molly Anderson characterize as the “hierarchical corporate ladder” with “a multidimensional corporate lattice,™” one whose structure is flatter, within which authority is more widely distributed, one that provides multidirectional career paths and, although driven by team and community commitments, nourishes mutual trust and respect between and among those involved.
As I worked my way through Benko and Anderson’s lively narrative, I was reminded of a passage from Walt Whitman’s poem, Song of Myself: “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.” Whitman’s affirmation of complexity and diversity could well serve as a mantra for the Lattice mindset. These are its core values:
• Success can be defined many different ways
• Success can be measured many different ways
• Individual growth can be developed many different ways
• When, where, and how work is done is determined in collaboration with those who will do it
• Jobs are competency-based to reflect its dynamic nature
• Information is widely accessible and customizable
• Multi-level co-creation drives engagement and achievement
• Integration of organizational and personal priorities and values
• Multiple career paths to accommodate different goals and competencies
I especially appreciate Benko and Anderson’s skillful use of various reader-friendly devices, such as Figures, Tables, and checklists. They consolidate key points. For example, “The forces driving the changing world of work” (Figure 2-1, Page 29), “Career engagement changes over time” (Figure 3-3, Page 74), and “The stages of lattice ways to participate” (Figure 5-1, Page 117); “A comparison of ladder and lattice thinking about careers” (Table 3-1, Page 53), “A comparison of ladder and lattice thinking about work” (Table 4-1, Page 81), and “A comparison of ladder and lattice thinking about participation” (Table 5-1, Page 102). There are also several dozen checklists in various formats that, in combination with Figures and Tables, will expedite frequent review of key points.
In this thoughtful and thought-provoking volume, Benko and Anderson provide a comprehensive, cohesive, and cost-effective “game plan” and operations manual that are needed to plan, implement, and then strengthen “a multidimensional corporate lattice(tm)” culture. Among the many significant benefits this enterprise architecture will achieve is what Cathleen Benko and Molly Anderson characterize as a “career-life fit” for each of those involved. Better yet, because each person’s life resembles a lattice rather than a ladder, the fit can be customized.
With regard to the “bottom line,” those involved in a lattice culture will be far more productive at work as well as much happier there and elsewhere. It is no coincidence that on the annual lists of companies most highly admired and the best to work for are also on the annual lists of those that are most profitable and most valuable. What does that suggest?

bigDwebsites.com
I literally just bought the book yesterday, after having read some excerpts online. The premise of the corporate lattice is very similar to what I’ve been describing in professional development seminars and workshops I’ve been conducting over the last couple of years. I talk a lot about matrix management (my model has always been a little 2D so I’m grateful for the more 3D lattice)and how it, in addition to being more relational, interesting, accessible, innovative and productive, presents tremendous opportunity — more exposure, more points of intersection, more responsibility.
My perspective and my work have always involved the idea of personal responsibility, ownership and accountability so I’ve been approaching the lattice from the granular and personal rather than corporate point of view. As important as it is for corporations to recognize and implement de jure the virtues of a lattice configuration, it’s also critical that the professionals within the organization understand the new order, its applications and its vaster potential.
As for work/life fit, I’m right there. Recently wrote a column (http://bit.ly/avY2dr) on how the quest for “balance” is really the quixotic pursuit of a holy grail. Balance exists in the laboratory, under perfect controlled conditions. Life is so not that way. I opted for the clunkier “equilibrium” to communicate that there’s an ebb and flow to work and life and that anyone insistent on “balance” is going to be just as frustrated trying to achieve it as they are living through any imbalance. Basically, we’re saying the same thing: that whatever we call it, we need to make allowances for differences among us, as everyone’s situation is unique, and that we have to build in a certain amount tolerance for things not quite in balance. Eventually, the system adjusts.
Comment by dtkunplugged | Sunday, December 5, 2010
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings.
I wholly agree about the value of equilibrium. I also believe that it is possible to determine what is most important in one’s career and in one’s personal life, then balance them. As you correctly suggest (or at least imply), however, life can quickly become messy and uncertain, especially when a crisis occurs (e.g. the loss of a major account or suddenly being terminated, a child is diagnosed with having a life-threatening illness or is seriously injured in an automobile accident). Adjustments of balance must be made, often on the run. There must be a new “fit.”
I will check out your column. Again, thanks for your insightful comments.
Comment by Bob Morris | Sunday, December 5, 2010