The Jolly Contrarian

Org chart: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Org chart (view source)

Revision as of 17:52, 25 February 2022

792 bytes removed ,  25 February 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 36: Line 36:
These are ''[[informal]]'' interactions. They are not well-documented, nor from above, well-understood. They are hard to see. They are il[[legible]]. Yet, everyone who has worked in a large organisation knows that there are a small number of key people, usually not occupying formally significant roles — they are too busy getting things done for that — who keep the whole place running. These “super-nodes” know histories, have networks, intuitively understand how the organisation really works, what you have to do and who you have to speak to to get things done. These are the [[ad hoc]] mechanics who keep the the superstructure on the road.
These are ''[[informal]]'' interactions. They are not well-documented, nor from above, well-understood. They are hard to see. They are il[[legible]]. Yet, everyone who has worked in a large organisation knows that there are a small number of key people, usually not occupying formally significant roles — they are too busy getting things done for that — who keep the whole place running. These “super-nodes” know histories, have networks, intuitively understand how the organisation really works, what you have to do and who you have to speak to to get things done. These are the [[ad hoc]] mechanics who keep the the superstructure on the road.


Likely management won’t have the first clue who these “super-nodes” are, precisely because they do not derive their significance from their ''formal'' characteristics, but from their ''in''formal ''function''.  
Often management won’t have much idea who these “super-nodes” are, precisely because they do not derive their significance from their ''formal status'', but from their ''in''formal ''function''. They earn this reputation daily, interaction by interaction.  


They are the informal hubs of a multiple hub-and-spoke network. They earn their authority not from their formal status, nor their formal grading, but their informal reputation, earned daily, interaction by interaction.
A bottom-up map of functional interactions would disregard the artificial cascade of formal ''authority'' in favour of informal ''credibility''. It would reveal the organisation as a point-to-point multi-nodal network, far richer than the flimsy frame indicated by the org chart. With modern data analytics, it would not even be hard to do: Log the firm’s communication records for data to see where those communications go: who chats with whom? who calls whom? Who emails whom? What is the informal structure of the firm? Who are the major nodes?


A map of interactions is not a top-down, God’s-eye view. It disregards the artificial cascade of formal authority in favour of informal credibility. It reveals the organisation as a point-to-point multi-nodal network, is a far richer organisation than that revealed by the org chart. This is how the firm actually works, and and inevitably the formal organisation will frustrate it.  
=== Modernism vs. agilism ===
The [[modernist]] sees the firm is a unitary machine that must be centrally managed and controlled from the top:  the more organisational structure the better. The “agilist” advocates removing layers, disestablishing [[silo]]s, and decluttering the organisational structure. Don’t ''rely'' on those senior managers: ''get rid of them''.


Yet no firm we know of even ''considers'' it. Yet, with data analytics, it would not even be hard to do: Log the firm’s communication records for data to see where those communications go: what is the informal structure of the firm? Who are the nodes?
The agile theory is that risks and opportunities arise unexpectedly, in places unanticipated by the formal management structure. The optimal organising principle is: allow talented [[subject matter expert]]<nowiki/>s flexibility and discretion to react to those risks and opportunities. Have the best people, with the best equipment, in the best place to react skilfully. Those people aren’t [[middle manager|middle managers]], the optimal equipment isn’t necessarily the one that leaves the best audit trail, and that place is not the board room, nor the [[steering committee]] or the [[operating committee]].  
 
Typically, ''vertical'', staff-to-manager communications don’t have those qualities. Reporting lines are more an interaction ''constraint'' rather than an indicator of productivity. They ''impede'' the firm from interacting freely.
 
The [[modernist]] theory is that the firm is a unitary machine that must be centrally managed and controlled from the top; therefore the more organisational structure the better.
 
The “agilist” advocates removing layers, disestablishing [[silo]]s, and decluttering the organisational structure. 
 
The agile theory is that risks and opportunities both arise unexpectedly, come from places unanticipated by the formal management structure, and therefore the optimal organising principle is to allow talented people at the the coalface the maximum flexibility to react to those risks and opportunities. Thus, the imperative is to have the best people, with the best equipment, in the best place to react skilfully. Those people aren’t [[middle manager|middle managers]], the optimal equipment isn’t the one that leaves the best audit trail, and that place is not the board room, much less the [[steering committee]] or the [[operating committee]].  


It is out there in the jungle. Management should seek the fewest number of formal impediments to the creative behaviour of those people.
It is out there in the jungle. Management should seek the fewest number of formal impediments to the creative behaviour of those people.


For a [[modernist]], this is inevitably a scary prospect. The [[modernist]] view is that as long as the structure is correct the quality of the people in any of the positions on the organisational structure is immaterial as they have predefined roles to perform: look after the pennies, and the pounds take care of themselves.
So to understand a business one needs not understand its formal structure, but its ''informal'' structure: not the roles but the people who fill them: who are the key people whom others go to to help get things done; to break through logjams, to ensure the management is on side?


So to understand a business one needs not understand its formal structure, but its ''informal'' structure: not the roles but the people who fill them: who are the key people whom others go to to help get things done; to break through logjams, to ensure the management is on side? These lines will not show up in any organisational structure. They are not what {{author|James C. Scott}} would describe as legible. They are hard to see: they are the beaten tracks through the jungle: the neural pathways that light up when the machine is thinking. They show up in email traffic, phone records, swipecode data.
These lines will not show up in any organisational structure. They are not what {{author|James C. Scott}} would describe as legible. They are hard to see: they are the beaten tracks through the jungle: the neural pathways that light up when the machine is thinking. They show up in email traffic, phone records, swipecode data.{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Line management]]
*[[Line management]]
*[[Reduction in force]]
*[[Reduction in force]]
*[[Dotted line]]
*[[Dotted line]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/62082"