Truly innovative workplaces recognise the need for a consistent approach to empowerment, learning and development running through every aspect of corporate policy from reward systems and performance appraisal to flexible working and budget devolution.
Many organisations appear to be structured around three assumptions:
- Hierarchies are just common sense: you need somebody to be in charge.
- People at the frontline are of lower status and less motivated so they can’t be trusted to make decisions or manage their own work.
- Other ways of organising may be fine for some organisations, but they’ll never work here.
Some demarcations may be necessary, reflecting different bodies of expertise and knowledge. Yet management layers inevitably put distance between decision-making and the frontline, disempowering and diminishing the voice of those at the lower levels as well as creating an implementation gap. Hierarchy breeds caution amongst managers, encouraging decisions to be delegated upwards with consequent loss of productivity and responsiveness.
Such vertically organised structures create silos and add to the difficulties of building bridges between functional specialisms. This often causes frustration in resolving day-to-day issues and can have a particularly negative effect on the capacity for innovation.
Conversely, a flat structure is when the business either has no management layers or where the chain of command is very short. The aim is often not to erase hierarchies entirely but to allow organisations to form hierarchies naturally. Different groups within organisations can intertwine in ways that help everyone understand other people’s jobs, professions, specialisms, priorities, problems and vision.
Flat organisations rely on a decentralised approach to management and require a high degree of employee involvement in decision-making. Control in flat companies lies in mutual agreements between self-managing, self-organising and self-designing teams and employees who take personal responsibility for satisfactory outcomes. This in turn empowers employees, facilitates information sharing, breaks down divisions between roles, shares competencies, and uses team or organisationwide reward systems.
Yet even within more flexible structures, mistrust and disempowerment can be embedded in the systems and processes that shape decision-making, resource allocation and standard operating procedures. They can reflect a culture of centralised control and micro-management.
Truly innovative workplaces recognise the need for a consistent approach to empowerment, learning and development running through every aspect of corporate policy from reward systems and performance appraisal to flexible working and budget devolution.
Getting rid of annoying processes
- How much control is actually necessary? Are the risks of loosening control greater than the (real and opportunity) costs of spending senior management time on relatively trivial issues?
- Is the formal appraisal interview a ‘tick box’ exercise? Or is it a milestone in a continuous coaching conversation with a line manager who understands how to help each individual develop and deliver their best performance?
- Are there established procedures for shared learning from mistakes and failures in an open and blame-free way?
- Is the importance of collaboration, reflection, improvement and innovation recognised in the organisation’s system of KPIs, targets and incentives?
Resources for Structures, Management and Processes
Bristan Case Study
inet-logistics GmbH: breaking down walls and ceilings
[accessally_course_navigation prev_button=’Previous’ next_button=’Next’]
