Organizational Challenges
05 June 2009 Tweet An ideal collaborative organization enables the talent to flow naturally to projects for its highest impact. Such an organization enables the flow, it manages the flow but it does not dictate the flow. The ideal being what it is, it nonetheless suggests the balance is shifting -- organizations would have to move aggressively towards enabling, supporting and managing the talent flow rather than dictating it.
The current hierarchical, box & wire organization becomes a structural barrier to talent flow, as the talent is expected and rewarded for performing within the departmental boundaries. How often have we heard that the talent is being “loaned out” by the manager to specific projects! Implicit in this is an expectation of the manager that the talent would protect departmental interests. Even if an altruistic manager does not have any such expectations, the talent is being “pushed out” to a project, as the decision of talent flow is being made by the department manager.
Pushing the talent to projects is one way for achieving collaboration. An alternative is to “entice” the talent to high value projects due to: i) their visibility and impact on the organization, and ii) professional and personal interests of the talent. This construct does not suggest anarchy but a managed flow of talent in which organizational goals and personal goals are optimized. The project manager attracts the needed talent due to the opportunity presented by the project, personal reputation and appeal, and appeal of working with other respected peers.
In this digital age of collaboration, where technology is lowering the time and distance barriers rapidly, the effective organization is flattening. Work is becoming more collaborative; that is, project-oriented and multi-disciplinary. Project managers would create more value through enticing and aligning the best talent with project needs. Instead of managing traditional departments, organizations would manage talent pools in requisite disciplines. Talent managers would nurture, support and help the talent to navigate, as well as ensure that the talent is setup for success in collaborative projects.
Interaction between project managers and talent/talent managers thus becomes a market-clearing mechanism, in which the talent allocation is optimized for the highest value to the organization as well as the individual.
The ideas presented above are not all that far-fetched, although most organizations have a long way to go. Apple Computers has been doing something similar for years, where project managers entice the talent and the talent has the ability to negotiate. Management consulting industry is another example. At the beginning of a new project, the best available talent is selected. Individual consultants have a varying degree of ability to negotiate. Since consulting firms nurture a culture of team work and collaboration, the project team begins to function effectively in a very little time. We are not biased towards the consulting industry because we have spent endless years in it. We know very well its organizational challenges to talent flow and turf protection. Nonetheless, the industry envisions an ideal allocation of talent, and goes towards it for a good measure.
Is the traditional organization structure, in use today, dead?
Lokesh Datta
Reader Comments (5)
Hi Lokesh,
You had written the truth of today's indian organisations. The traditional structure is making them dead. If we see Indian IT Industry, they had not given a single innovation like FaceBook, LinkedIn, Twitter or google to this world. It does't mean Indian IT don't have Talent, but the talent is locked in tradtional organisational structure. Heck these CMMi process & traditional structure.
Pankaj,
Thank you for your comments. Societal culture influences organizational culture to a varying extent. As I have written and research studies have shown that organization culture is a key determinant of effective collaboration for innovation and productivity improvements.
Organizations must learn to manage talent, not people!
I also think organizations would have to move aggressively towards enabling, supporting and managing the talent flow rather than dictating it that doesn`t matter you are working for IT Outsourcing or other services.
I posted this question on LinkedIn: Would you share your ideas or models for leading and/or managing a “flat” organization?
We know that Enterprise 2.0 is all the buzz today. Enterprise 2.0, at least in part, focuses on: transparency, personal empowerment, rejection of the command & control management, demise of the hierarchical organization of today, and so on. Thus, the challenge for leaders and managers in the Enterprise 2.0, stated as my question above.
I received interesting responses that I would like to share.
----------------------------------
Richard Derwent Cooke, Change Mentor & Expert Facilitator, bringing Clarity, building Options and driving Action!
I'd be interested to know how big an organisation we are discussing?
Over a certain size, I think it can just be 'flater' rather than flat
----------------------------------
Frank Feather, ►CEO NorthStar ►Ex-Banker ►Futurist ►Speaker ►Your Future is My Business
The Internet Revolution changes the organizational paradigm for every kind of company, transforming it into a network.
The leadership and management of a network-shapes organization are really no different.
It is not truly flat anyway, but more three-dimensional or multi-dimensional.
This requires vastly improved systems of communication, but fortunately the info-structure of the network facilitates exactly that.
----------------------------------
Elizabeth Montgomery, Chief Solutions Officer - Creating & Translating Strategic Vision into Operational Business Plans
You may find this article interesting---"Structure? The Flatter, the Better" - http://nyti.ms/7Oj2po
----------------------------------
Abiel Guerra, | MSOD | Human Resources | Labor Relations |
Take a look at the links below...
http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/culture/index.html
http://www.workforce.com/section/09/feature/24/29/22/
----------------------------------
Garrett Gitchell, President Vision to Work, Change Management, Speaker
There are lucky times when I can help orchestrate a flat model for rolling out change. I call it horizontal change to give the stakeholders their initial languaging. Very few organizations are truly matrixed so this is done within a hierarchical structure.
The change and the movement to the end state is the glue; the need for specific skills at the appropriate time (with the right level of effort) is the platform for flat. Leading and managing that is no different than a vertical situation- acknowledge effort and skill, be honest and clear when exchanging information, guide rather than direct.
----------------------------------
Jeff Dorigan, Vice President, Planning & Analysis, State Street Global Advisors
My $.02... "Flat" organizations aren't always optimal. In order for a flat organization to be effective, you need your employees to be aligned around the company's objectives (a.k.a. vision, mission, etc.) and everyone needs to understand their function within the organization. Ideally, each individual’s performance is fairly transparent -- i.e. it's obvious when someone is doing well or not working out.
As a practical example, I co-founded and led a small sales organization of roughly 20 people a number of years ago. We established the firm's vision along with some basic management and control systems and policies for the firm. Once in place, we tried to lead by example doing the same work everyone we’d hired was asked to do. All 18-20 of the employees reported up to the top -- it was the simplest of structures with no need for middle-management. We started everyone out on the same plan. After 90 days it was fairly easy to see who needed guidance and direction and who could be given more latitude and autonomy.
Because Sales is inherently a function where individual productivity can be easily measured, it was. If someone’s numbers began to slip, we intervened. Our top performers, on the other hand, were given almost complete autonomy. Micro-management was a tool of last resort to be employed only when one of our employees requested it or if their performance required it.
This isn’t entirely easy to replicate or scale with other functions – nor is it easy to implement in large, complex organization. We were interested in being small, nimble, and entrepreneurial – an ideal scenario for the structure we employed. Contrast that to a large, complex corporation with multiple business units, products, and services. Employing a flat organization could be catastrophic – especially if it’s not done appropriately …
Lokesh,
Thank you for the inclusion in your blog. I look forward to more of your take on collaboration.
My blog, should anyone be interested in the change management approach to flattening and collaboration is http://www.horizontal change.com.