This word probably means nothing to you.
It was coined by Henry Mintzberg to describe organizations that form around a one-off need.
Adhocracies don't rely on existing templates.
They don't lean on codified chains of command.
The organization is decided ad hoc (hence the name).
They take whatever shape they need to take to solve the problem they're asked to solve.
Then they vanish or change form.
Talking with a director today, I realized this is probably my new rallying cry.
All my projects are adhocracies.
(At least most of my old projects – the ones I like – and every single one of the next.)
In other words:
First there's the project.
There's the crazy idea, the script, the challenge.
Then, layer by layer, we build the framework, the organization, the resources and the team to bring it to life.
At the start, there's no way to know what shape the work will take in the end.
All of it gets decided ad hoc, depending on the circumstances and the reality on the ground.
The form and the way it runs will mold themselves to the constraints.
Yes, it's the same idea I laid out about drawing yesterday: you discover by doing, and that's what makes it exciting.
The financial, human and material framework isn't a limit you fight against.
It's a wave you surf.
And that's where the pleasure comes from.
The organization is no longer a constraint but the tool.
The exact opposite of what I used to do:
You start with the script. You look for the producer. The co-productions. The broadcaster. The grants. The team.
All in that order. Each step after the other. Everyone under the authority of the one above.
It's an industrial setup where the machine "molds" the project.
Every step of the chain is known in advance.
All of them learned by the hopefuls, in school or on the job.
And if your project doesn't fit, it's never the machine that gets replaced.
It's an intuition I've had for a long time. Back then, I already used to say: "directing is producing".
In other words, I clearly understood that the director's work didn't start at nine in the morning on the first day of shooting. Nor during prep or writing.
How the shoot is organized, the schedule chosen, the way partners are recruited, the financial and material framework...
All of that has far, far more impact on the film than any decision the director could make on set.
If you've recruited deadweight, or the prep isn't adequate, there's nothing you can say or do before rolling the camera to avoid disaster.
And yet, the more producers and directors I meet, the more films I see... the more it feels like the creativity of projects is being crushed by this machine.
It's quite handy for certain decision-makers who've managed to industrialize their process.
But I think it's lethal for everything else.