82,469
edits
Org chart: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
===Spans and layers=== | ===Spans and layers=== | ||
There is much management theory around the relationship of “spans” and “layers”<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=spans+and+layers Let me google that for you].</ref> optimal organisation | There is much management theory around the relationship of “spans” and “layers”<ref>[https://www.google.com/search?q=spans+and+layers Let me google that for you].</ref> in the optimal organisation. There should be no more than 5 “layers” of management; a “span” of no more than 5 direct reports and so on. Why? ''To make performance appraisal easier''. | ||
This, from [https://peoplepuzzles.co.uk/news/ive-got-too-many-direct-reports/#:~:text=Around%20five%20direct%20reports%20seems,really%20hold%20the%20business%20back People Puzzles], is pretty funny:{{quote|'''How many is too many?''' <br>Around five direct reports seems to be the optimum number, according to Mark and Alison, although there are some scenarios where up to nine can work.<br>When it comes to the senior team in a company, however, too many people reporting directly to the owner manager can really hold the business back. Alison recalls working with someone who had 13 people reporting directly to her. “She had to do 13 [[Performance appraisal|appraisals]] at the end of every year!” she says. “It simply wasn’t an effective use of her time.”}}Witness the formalist disposition, when the most significant thing you can do is ''manage'', and the most significant part of management is [[Performance appraisal|''performance'' ''appraisal'']]. | |||
Hypothesis therefore: performance comes ''despite'' management, not ''because'' of it. | The ethos is this: ''look after the form and the substance will look after itself''. But this is to look after the pounds and hope the pennies take care of themselves. Well, of ''course'' they will: that’s what pennies do: they need no licence from the boss for that.Hypothesis therefore: performance comes ''despite'' management, not ''because'' of it. | ||
Management focuses on reporting lines — [[formal]] organisational structure — because it can ''see'' them. They are [[legible]]. They are measurable. [[Audit|Auditable]]. There are spans and layers, to be counted and optimised. In this way can those at the top conveniently attribute business success to the formal structure they preside over. | Management focuses on reporting lines — [[formal]] organisational structure — because it can ''see'' them. They are [[legible]]. They are measurable. [[Audit|Auditable]]. There are spans and layers, to be counted and optimised. In this way can those at the top conveniently attribute business success to the formal structure they preside over. | ||
But | But reporting lines are the most sclerotic, rusty and ''resented'' communication channels in the organisation. They are the “keep off the grass” signs; vain attempts to coerce inferior modes of communication at the expense of better ones, for if they really were the best lines of communication, you wouldn’t ''need'' to formalise. They would just ''happen''. | ||
Communications up and down the chain of command — reluctant, strained, for the sake of it, to fulfil formal, not substantive, requirements for order — are ''reactive'' to [[Commercial imperative|commercial imperatives]]: the firm’s real business is done only when its gears are engaged, and that means its personnel communicate with those who are ''not'' in their immediate hierarchy. The business unit is a cog: what matters is what happens ''when it is engaged''. | Communications up and down the chain of command — reluctant, strained, for the sake of it, to fulfil formal, not substantive, requirements for order — are ''reactive'' to [[Commercial imperative|commercial imperatives]]: the firm’s real business is done only when its gears are engaged, and that means its personnel communicate with those who are ''not'' in their immediate hierarchy. The business unit is a cog: what matters is what happens ''when it is engaged''. | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
===The map and the territory=== | ===The map and the territory=== | ||
Reporting lines mistake [[The map and the territory|the map for the territory]]. | Reporting lines mistake [[The map and the territory|the map for the territory]]. They are a bad static map of the firm, configured in the abstract, ''when it is at rest''. That is, ''before it does anything''. This is how the machine works ''when it is idling''. | ||
[[Org chart]]s: the plan you have ''[[Complex system|before]]'' [[Complex system|you get punched in the mouth]]. | [[Org chart]]s: the plan you have ''[[Complex system|before]]'' [[Complex system|you get punched in the mouth]]. | ||
| Line 33: | Line 34: | ||
But the organisation’s resting state overlooks its ''real'' arterial network: ''lateral'' interactions that must ''cross'' whatever boundaries management can dream up, or that leave the firm altogether: these are the communications that employees ''must'' make: between internal specialists in different departments; with the firm’s clients and external suppliers — they make commerce happen and move the organisation along. It is ''in'' these interactions that things happen: it is here that tensions manifest themselves, problems emerge and opportunities arise, and here that these things are resolved. These are not [[Drills and holes|the drill, but the hole in the wall]]. | But the organisation’s resting state overlooks its ''real'' arterial network: ''lateral'' interactions that must ''cross'' whatever boundaries management can dream up, or that leave the firm altogether: these are the communications that employees ''must'' make: between internal specialists in different departments; with the firm’s clients and external suppliers — they make commerce happen and move the organisation along. It is ''in'' these interactions that things happen: it is here that tensions manifest themselves, problems emerge and opportunities arise, and here that these things are resolved. These are not [[Drills and holes|the drill, but the hole in the wall]]. | ||
These are ''[[informal]]'' interactions. They are not well-documented, nor from above, well-understood. They are hard to see. They are | These are ''[[informal]]'' interactions. They are not well-documented, nor from above, well-understood. They are hard to see. They are [[legible|illegible]]. | ||
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. | |||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 40: | Line 43: | ||
=== Modernism vs. agilism === | === Modernism vs. agilism === | ||
The [[modernist]] sees the firm | The [[modernist]] sees the firm as a unitary machine that must be centrally managed and controlled from the top: the ''more'' structure the better. | ||
The “agilist” sees it as an ecosystem, and advocates removing layers, disassembling [[silo]]s and decluttering the structure. Don’t ''rely'' on those senior managers: ''get rid of them''. | |||
The agile theory is that risks and opportunities arise unexpectedly, in places | The agile theory is that risks and opportunities arise unexpectedly, in times and at places you can’t anticipate. The optimal organising principle therefore is: ''give talented [[subject matter expert|people]] flexibility and discretion to react as they see fit''. 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]]. | ||
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. | ||