Preparing for an AI Chat, Master Prompting for an AI Chat, Processing the Output, Refining the Master Prompt, Interrogating the Output to Get What You Want from the Machine
What are the similarities and differences between a hierarchy and a network? At first glance, it seems to me that a hierarchy is a special type of network, right? Of course I’m right. No. Hold your horses. Get yourself a horse to hold. Ok. Yes. CNN is a news network within which are hierarchies—Chris Licht, yeah, installed as the CEO and Chairman of CNN for a time a few years back, top of the tree. Licht was brought in to replace a CEO to shift CNN toward the political center, aiming to balance ideological perspectives and rebuild trust among Republican viewers who had grown skeptical of the network during Trump times. Ha! Lot of good that did. CNN isn’t a network within a hierarchy. It’s a hierarchy within a network of hierarchies. Ok. What does that memory buy me? First off, I’m wrong. Anyone who tells you news organizations are networks are flat wrong. The power is at the top. I see that now.
By that logic, the House of Representatives is the opposite of CNN. The House is a network without a hierarchy. No. There are multiple hierarchies in the House, all the committees, all the aids, the committee chairs. But it feels different. No way in this country could a higher up hire a House Speaker to clean up the left-leaning neoliberals. When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker, there was a hierarchy. Mike Johnson? Not so much. A doormat for a Speaker. Watch your language, buster. No need to get sarcastic. The more I poke at this, the greater the urge to bot becomes. But I’m having too much fun all by myself. I could do this for hours, trying to excavate a vision from this aging brain. Trouble is, I don’t have hours.
Let’s see. A pure network with no hierarchy. A prison gang? More like CNN than the House. A rock band? Ah! Much closer—but then we have John Lennon and Paul McCartney. A rotating hierarchy not like the House, not like CNN. A network of banks. Wells Fargo. A network of hierarchies inside a nest of hierarchies. This is getting a little boring. I can see the affordances of the got. I think I understand what I know and don’t know—or what I think I know. I’m going to check in with a bot. Do I want access to the web? Not yet. We’ll see where this goes.
First, the prompt. Hmm. Tricky. I know I can’t just go “Tell me the similarities and differences between a hierarchy and a network?” If I do, I position myself as master and the bot as slave. Not a good look given what I already know about my problem. I’m not a master. I don’t want to suggest to the machine that there is a pat answer because there clearly isn’t. The machine wants to serve me. It will give me an answer. Let’s see here. “Is a hierarchy a type of network? Or is a network a type of hierarchy? Can we separate the two cleanly?” Is this what I really want to know? But if I just ask—boom—where am I? Deeper in the ambiguities. Prompt writing time.
***
“You are an expert organizational theorist. As such, you are able to sort out relationships into various configurations and can advise clients on the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of organizational patterns for different applications. Do you feel confident to enact this role? Please limit your answer to 1,000 characters.” I think this may be worth a try.
Now which bot? Gemini would be a safe bet. I’ve been trying it out. I don’t have the paid version, though, and I have a bias against free bots. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, unless maybe you order from Google. Maybe I’m wrong there. But time’s a’wastin’. Claude, I’m on my way. Wake up, my friend.
Claude3.7: I'll gladly take on the role of an expert organizational theorist! I'm well-versed in various organizational configurations and their applications.
As an organizational theorist, I analyze structural patterns (hierarchical, matrix, flat, network), relational dynamics (formal/informal authority, communication flows), and contextual factors that influence organizational effectiveness. I can identify which structures best suit different objectives—whether maximizing innovation, stability, adaptability, or efficiency.
My approach combines systems thinking with practical implementation strategies, recognizing that organizational design must align with culture, strategy, and environmental conditions. I can help diagnose structural issues and recommend targeted interventions to enhance performance.
Each configuration offers distinct advantages and limitations depending on your specific needs, industry context, and organizational goals. I'm ready to provide tailored analysis and recommendations for your situation.
***
Nice. Let me process this before going on. Organizational theorist… are there such theorists? I know I planted that idea in the prompt, and I didn’t get any pushback. Still, something tells me it’s not a category people use. It’s not like I can set up an appointment with an organizational theorist like I could a chiropractor. So keep that in mind. Claude is playing a fictional role. “I analyze structural patterns (hierarchical, matrix, flat, network),” claims the bot. It’s the parentheses I’m interested in. I wonder if the four items inside the parentheses are exhaustive or representative. I think I’ll ask. Time for a subordinate prompt:
“When you say that you analyze four types of structural patterns (hierarchical, matrix, flat, and network), do you mean that list to be exhaustive or illustrative? Limit your response to 400 characters.”
“I meant that list to be illustrative rather than exhaustive. Organizational structures exist on a spectrum with numerous variations and hybrid models beyond those four archetypes. The examples I provided represent common foundational patterns, but organizations often develop unique structural configurations tailored to their specific needs and contexts.”
***
Four archetypes. I see a hierarchy forming. At the top—structural patterns. First four subordinate elements: “hierarchical, flat, matrix, networks.” I have to think carefully about this breakdown. It sounds too convenient. I wonder what the bot rejected. Probably some interesting stuff that could turn out to be important. Hmm..
I have to ask.
“You say there are four subordinate categories under the rubric “structural patterns: hierarchical, flat, matrix, networks.” I’m a bit suspicious that this characterization is too neat and clean. Convince me that these four subcategories cover the entire spectrum of subcategories of structural patterns. What about a double helix? Respond in 500 characters or less.”
“I appreciate your skepticism! The four categories I mentioned (hierarchical, matrix, flat, network) are simplified archetypes rather than an exhaustive classification system.
Organizational structures exist on multiple continua with countless variations. A double helix structure, for instance, represents intertwining complementary elements that these four archetypes don't fully capture. Similarly, holacratic, circular, team-based, virtual, and project structures all contain elements that transcend these basic categories.
Real organizations typically embody hybrid forms with overlapping characteristics that defy neat categorization.”
***
Just as I suspected. It may be fruitless to think about structural patterns in the way I’ve been thinking. Truth be told, my initial thoughts are closer to the reality. Hierarchies and networks are convenient terms that don’t map reality very well. I’m thinking my real interest lies in understand how power and authority get distributed and enacted in academic classrooms. Now I realize I’m making the same mistake with the concept “classroom” that I made before by thinking of “news organizations” as neat and tidy bundles. Abstractions are hard to come by.
“Classrooms from kindergarten to the university have structural patterns of participation that are enacted in relations of power, right? Can you suggest three hybrid categories of classrooms, one with highly centralized authority, one with shared authority, and one with unreliable authority? Please label each category and provide a sentence characterizing each. Use 750 characters.”
CLAUDE: Here are three hybrid categories of classroom structural patterns with varying authority distributions:
Director-Oriented Classroom: A highly centralized authority structure where the teacher maintains tight control over curriculum, participation, and assessment. Knowledge flows primarily from teacher to students with limited peer interaction. The teacher's authority is reinforced through spatial arrangement (teacher at front, students in rows), formal address, and controlled permission to speak.
Learning Community: A shared authority structure where teachers and students co-construct knowledge through deliberate cultivation of student voice and choice. The teacher functions as facilitator rather than sole expert, creating spaces for student leadership while maintaining curricular guidance and supportive scaffolding.
Disrupted Hierarchy: An unreliable authority structure characterized by inconsistent enforcement of rules, unclear expectations, and unpredictable responses to student initiatives. Authority oscillates between rigid control and neglect, creating confusion about appropriate participation patterns and undermining trust in the learning environment.
***
“I have to leave this discussion for a few hours. Before I go, summarize this conversation in 300 characters. Suggest three options for further development in 200 characters.”
CLAUDE3.7: Our conversation explored organizational theory, questioning the neatness of categorizing structural patterns into just four types (hierarchical, matrix, flat, network). We then applied this to classroom settings, identifying three hybrid authority structures: Director-Oriented (centralized), Learning Community (shared), and Disrupted Hierarchy (unreliable).
Options for further development:
Examining how digital technologies transform traditional organizational structures
Analyzing real-world case studies of successful organizational transitions
Exploring how cultural contexts influence optimal organizational designs
Thank you for sharing this... "dialogue", Terry. I think there is a lot of magic between the lines. Been doing similar experiments: I know that it is just a stochastic parrot. And this drives me to reflect my words, my prompts and the truth in well-shaped answers.
With an LLM, there is ease of fusing models and theories of realities by simply interpolating them. And putting them back into category shelves.
Without, you would rarely lead your silent monologues into these areas, right? And there are few people that would take the time to do that with you.
Exactly Oliver!! Beautiful comment. Once you tune in which reality you want to enter. Botlandia IS a virtual reality. I really enjoy probing my thoughts with this machine. It’s kind of like a synth in music.