Remind me again, what was so bad about hierarchies?
 

Here’s a question for you. What is the fundamental type of management structure which has been invented independently on many occasions in human history, all over the world?

As clues, I can tell you it has been continually refined through a process of trial and error up to modern times. The Egyptian Civil Service and the Roman Army organized themselves this way. It also seems to respond to something deep in the human psyche, which needs order and structure if it is to work effectively.

I’m talking about hierarchies of course. For an idea that seems so natural, and has been independently discovered so often, it’s surprising that the idea is in such disfavour now. “Hierarchical” is almost a swearword, unless we are speaking of databases.

What’s the problem?

Leaving aside the obvious point that any form of organization can be well or badly run, there’s a basic misperception about hierarchical organizations; one that has been encouraged by those who write about them without ever having worked in one. They assume that hierarchies are rigid structures in which every idea and every initiative has to go through endless, multiple layers before anything is decided. In most people’s minds, hierarchies are linked with Max Weber’s descriptions of bureaucracies, which even those who have never heard of Weber have absorbed by osmosis. (If you’re interested, Weber was describing an “ideal type” of organization, not something that actually existed).

In realty, a well-organized hierarchy is a sophisticated device for ensuring that work gets done at the most appropriate level. In most organization, work—sales inquiries, letters from the public, requests for assistance—comes in at or near the bottom. In a properly constructed hierarchy, issues which are entirely routine are dealt with at the lowest feasible level. Those which require more thought are passed up to the next level, and so on. In that way, only the most important and difficult issues ever get to the top of the organization. Conversely, those at the top can ask questions in the knowledge that somewhere below them is an expert, whom they may not even know, who will have an answer.

However, a hierarchy only works properly if two conditions are fulfilled:

• It has to be based on promotion by merit. Those above must have the confidence of those below, and should ideally have done the same or similar jobs earlier in their career.
• It has to be based on a long-serving workforce, capable of developing a common culture, and tackling problems in much the same way. These concepts, pioneered by the British Civil Service in the 19th century, were deliberately based on the way the Chinese ran things several millennia before.

Why are hierarchies out of favor?

Partly, it’s a confused idea that they are inappropriate to what we like to think of as a ‘democratic’ era. (Ask yourself how ‘democratic’ the average flat management structure is.) Partly they’re a victim of populist folklore about inefficient bureaucrats and the benefits of unleashing entrepreneurial independence . . . or something like that. There are other and more worrying reasons too:

1. If it ain’t broke, there’s no money to be made in fixing it. The Maoist permanent revolution required by the consultancy industry generates profits by developing expensive new structures which then fail, so they have to be replaced by even more expensive alternatives. Much of the money spent on organizational consultancy these days is to repair the damage caused by earlier reorganizations. Systems that people design for themselves generally work well and last a long time.
2. Hierarchies are an easy target for cost-savings. How often have you heard about “stripping out unnecessary layers of management”? Have you wondered why these layers of management were ever introduced in the first place, if they weren’t necessary? Have you ever tried to fight your way through a flat, non-hierarchic organization in search of someone who knew what they were doing and had the authority to decide something? Or have you ever been a manager in a flat structure overwhelmed with queries from subordinates? (If in doubt, human beings always refer problems upwards.)
3. Most importantly, attacks on hierarchies are a way of avoiding responsibility. If you are the leader of a twelve-person team, you’re responsible for their welfare and development—with power comes responsibility. But if you are one of several reporting points for matrix-managed, ad hoc ‘tiger teams’, you can afford to forget about that and concentrate on your career. Most organizations long ago stopped promoting people because they were good at managing others. The attack on hierarchies makes the promotion of the ruthless and the ambitious much easier and more acceptable.

Trying to abolish hierarchies is pointless: people will simply re-establish them unofficially. Every time you ask a more experienced colleague for advice, you’re creating a virtual hierarchy. If organizations realized this, and spent some of the effort that goes into destroying hierarchies to make them work better, organizations wouldn’t be in the mess they are.

Technorati Tags: organization, management, hierarchy, leadership, organizational structure

Related articles by Zemanta

• If you’re working in a big group, you’re fighting human nature
• The Everything 2.0 discussion - the real issue

Why the problems of Wall Street are only symptoms
 

I’m sure, like me, you’re drowning in reports, debates, opinions, treatises, articles and sound bites about recent events on Wall Street.

While most of these have focused on issues of financial credit, commercial paper, stocks, mortgages, the housing crisis, executive greed and the like, what shouts out at me is a deeper issue—an erosion of trust leading to a systemic breakdown in relationships.

There was a time when a loan or mortgage was processed between two individuals, a banker and a borrower. It resulted in a long-term working relationship demanding trust, transparency and honesty. Today, this lending relationship—along with most others—has morphed into a fragmented process: what was once a meeting of individuals has become a soulless transaction involving numerous players, each of whom exercises their function for a brief period, then moves on; and none of whom have the time or inclination to treat any of the others as real, flesh-and-blood human beings.

As Joan Borysenko writes: “We cannot serve at a distance. We can only serve that to which we are profoundly connected, that which we are willing to touch.” Without relationships, little is left that can serve as the basis for on-going trust.

From Wall Street to Main Street

What has been happening on Wall Street is also happening on Main Street. The dynamic we have come to know as ‘relationship’ is disintegrating, replaced by a connection or transaction, most often based on superficial, fleeting contacts characterized by distance and impersonal channels. Whether that contact comes through e-mail, cellphone, Blackberry, Twitter, social networking sites or texting, this electronic connection is devoid of direct, personal contact. There’s no face-to-face interaction, so emotional connection is lost.

With that loss, trust erodes. You no longer have to face the person you’re dealing with; look in his or her eyes and become aware of human contact at an emotional level. And as relationships shift into impersonal modes, untrustworthy behavior gets easier. Telling a bare-faced lie over the telephone or via e-mail is far simpler and more tempting than trying to carry it off in a face-to-face meeting.

Relationships that produce openness and trust can only be cultivated when all parties experience an emotional ‘safe zone’. That’s why, when relationships are replaced by “electronic” interactions and transactions, emotional connection—the human factor that creates true relationships—goes missing; along with feelings of warmth and friendship towards the other person: what marriage researcher John Gottman says is the definitive foundational element that determines the sustainability of relationships. When there is no emotional connection, there is no friendship. No friendship, no trust. No trust, no honesty, no transparency, no truth-telling.

Emotional connection is blocked by transmission through the ether

The ether through which electronic connections are made—whether with banks, other businesses, our loved ones or friends and colleagues—cannot transmit this ‘safe zone’ or generate feelings of trustworthiness. The major unintended consequence of all our ‘separation by electronics’ is the erosion of genuine human contact. Without it, so-called relationships become mere temporary linkings of convenience, as easily broken off as established.

Within an electronic, transactional world, more and more people may be connecting, but fewer and fewer folks are relating. We may live in an increasingly inter-connected world, but we are experiencing a far less inter-related one. Thanks to the fragmentation of relationships—one major consequence of living in such a culture—human contact is more likely to be limited to a phone call, an e-mail, or a quick “cu” text message. This is a poor substitute for real conversation and authentic dealings with another human being. It’s questionable whether it represents actual contact at all.

The disintegrating relationships on Wall Street and Main Street are symptomatic of a greater threat and challenge—one based on living in a world where all this superficial inter-connecting is replacing deeper inter-relating. Even as it becomes easier than ever to stay ‘in touch’, our capacity actually to touch one another—physically or emotionally—is slipping away. No wonder the willingness to trust is failing as well.

Here are some questions for self-reflection:

• How many people do you deal with personally after the initial contact. Do you ‘hand them off’ to others? Are you available to them personally if they want to contact you later on?
• Do you establish actual relationships with colleagues, co-workers and clients? How about your children? Do you ever view direct contact with others as an irritant or a distraction? Do you prefer to connect with people at arm’s length?
• What is your preferred mode of communicating at work—in person or by electronic device (even when in-person is very do-able)?
• How would you describe the nature of your relationships at work: ‘connecting’ or ‘relating’? What would others say about you?
• How many chairs in your home actually face one another? How often do you have face-to-face conversations with each other as opposed to ’snippets’ sitting side by side while watching TV, reading the paper or handling some business document? When you and your family sit down for meals, is the cell phone also a required utensil?
• When you are with others, do they spend more time looking at some electronic device than they do engaged in meaningful conversation with you and each other? What about you? Is your cell phone or BlackBerry with you at every moment?

Technorati Tags: relationships, communication, human contact, trust, being face-to-face, establishing trust, listening, being available

It’s better to be respected and not liked than to be liked and not respected
 

One of the critical things that a leader must possess is honesty. Not only in the sense that they ought to be honest in their behavior, but also in that they must call things as they see them. Without doubt, leaders come upon countless situations in which they must figure out the “right” way to say something to an employee or group of employees. For me, the easiest way to address these situations is to ignore the politics and just say what you believe to be the clearest, most honest communication you can put together. Often, people try to couch things in certain ways hoping that the desired message will be interpreted by the recipient.

I strongly encourage those around me to speak openly and candidly with the focus being overall performance. Sometimes, it may create negative feelings, but when couched in the choice of (1) saying something to make the person aware or (2) not saying something and hoping for positive change, there can be no clearer answer than to say something as clearly as possible.

Clarity counts

When a difficult situation arises, you have a couple of choices to deal with it: you can say something or you can say nothing.

For example, if an employee charged with an assignment does not perform to expectations, you can tell them or stay silent and hope they’ll somehow change. For sure, the best thing that you can do to prevent similar situations from recurring is to speak out clearly and without ambiguity. After all, how will they know that they missed expectations, or know how to correct things in the future, without a clear, unambiguous communication telling them so?

Of course, they may not find that type of communication easy to hear—they may hope you haven’t noticed the undesirable performance—but that’s the way it is. In my experience though, people very often respond to open communication with appreciation both for the honesty and for the opportunity to correct course going forward.

Straight talk may not be comfortable for you either

Delivering open, honest criticism can open you up to being labeled with less than desirable names. But, in a classic risk-reward trade off, it also can lead to being considered a clear, candid communicator.

Without such communications, individuals who perform less than ideally would not be given productive, fruitful criticism; and would not likely modify their future behavior or performance. If that’s tolerated, others in the organization who witness this may come to the conclusion that senior management simply doesn’t care about the quality of employee performance. This belief, if allowed to fester and pervade an organization, can undermine people and business alike.

To ensure the best team performance and outcomes, be sure to speak clearly, openly and as honestly as you can. To me, the risk of being labeled negatively is far less important than the gains in performance that come from plain speaking—let alone the respect which you’ll earn for demonstrating a commitment to candor and integrity.

Remember, it’s better to be respected and not liked than to be liked and not respected—even if it hurts.

Technorati Tags: communication, straight talking, openness, candor, honesty, integrity

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Six Pillars of Character
• 5 Personal Leadership Words

The bail-out package that we all really need

Technorati Tags: leadership, attitudes, global crisis, management mistakes, leadership failures, finding a way out of our troubles

What every leader and organization should be learning from Wall Street’s misery

“Shipwreck” J.M.W. Turner

People tend to over-value their assets and ignore embarrassing problems. Part of the problem with Wall Street is that corporations still can’t bring themselves to admit that most of the fancy derivatives and other so-called assets they are holding are worth virtually nothing. They hang on, claiming their businesses are strong and denying the truth, until it’s too late and the crisis threatens to overwhelm them, one by one.

It’s the same with personal strengths and capabilities: people tend to over-value their abilities and underplay their weaknesses. As a result, they become complacent about what skills and experience they have and what they can achieve with them.

Too many bosses convince themselves that their people like them more than they do; that they’re better, cleverer leaders than they are; that they are excellent communicators, when the reality is much less hopeful; and that they can run their part of the business better than is actually the case. Read the full story

How to spot those who will screw-up as a leader, manager or supervisor

First, two facts. The vast majority of employees who quit their jobs do not leave their company; they leave their boss. The vast majority of leaders, managers and supervisors who are fired, replaced, removed—or who derail—are not deficient in technical skills, expertise or know-how. They are fired, or fail, because of their lack of effective interpersonal skills.

Many of today’s workplaces are deficient in the kind of learning and development that addresses issues of self-discovery, as well as the principles and practices that promote conscious and healthy relationships. Truly knowing yourself, which includes seeking the feedback of others, creates a healthy sense of self-esteem and forms the basis for successful relationships. Read the full story

Today’s executives are still being driven to make decisions that address
short-term financial performance at the expense of the long-term
best interests of the company. When will it end?
 

With the global economy still working its way through a seemingly interminable series of financial crises and yo-yoing oil prices, companies are struggling to manage all the repercussions. Airline business models surely weren’t built with high oil prices factored in. Banks didn’t foresee the credit crisis on the horizon. Auto makers didn’t anticipate interest in SUVs crashing. Why aren’t these companies able to see these things happening with more notice? Wall Street and its investors—which means almost all of us who have savings or pension plans—may well have a lot to do with it, along with incomes based on hitting the quarterly targets Wall Street demands.

Most investors seek the best and quickest possible return on their investments, so companies often make decisions based solely on the short-term impact on bottom-line results. Investors see quick returns and reward companies by continuing to invest in their shares.

However, this short-term financial focus often comes at the expense of companies making longer-term, more strategic, decisions that might not have as good a short-term financial effect. Unlike Warren Buffet, who has been quoted saying “our favorite holding period is forever,” most investors do not have a very long-term focus. Since they’re paying the piper, they call the tune leaders must dance to. Read the full story

Helen Major has dispiriting news for anyone trying to curb a bully

Who do you turn to for help if your reputation and health are being destroyed by a workplace bully? Since research indicates that most bullies target good employees, you would think that the obvious answer would be that they should turn to HR or their union. The problem is that ten years of international research on workplace bullying indicates that that may be the wrong thing to do.

Web sites dedicated to bully busting, like the site for the Workplace Bullying Institute in Bellingham Washington, bluntly tell targets NOT to trust HR or expect the union to help them unless the target can make a business case for HR or the union’s “own self-interests.”

Curious as to why HR and unions were perceived so negatively, I decided to do some research on my own. I interviewed four HR and four union subjects and they generously shared their personal encounters with work place bullying with me. Read the full story

You don’t have to stay with fixed stereotypes or rigid rules

 
“I often think it’s comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fa! La! La!

— Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera “Iolanthe” (1882)

There are times when it’s extremely tempting to believe that Gilbert had it right and that the world is composed of two kinds of people: stiff-necked, puritanical and rigid conservatives; and free-flowing, wishy-washy, politically-correct liberals.

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson wrote, long before “Ionlanthe” came on stage in London:

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object.

This view of the world as based on a simple dichotomy between right and left is tempting, but, I suspect, probably wrong. We all have both of these tendencies within us. Sometimes we’re concerned with stability and respect for the past, sometimes ready to take risks and pursue our freedom. The problem comes when one or other tendency gains a sufficient upper-hand to suppress the other one entirely.

This is certainly the case in a leader. A rigid, rule-bound, change-resisting leader can cause havoc. But so can a leader who applies such alight touch — and is so averse to setting any kind of boundaries or rules — that no one is quite sure of what they are supposed to do, and there is little or no co-ordination between people working towards the same goal. Read the full story

All may be fair in love and war, but the business world is certainly not the first and need not be the second. It’s time we all remembered that.

English people living abroad (a category that includes me) must get used to being made fun of for coming from the nation that invented cricket (unless, of course, they’re in another cricket-playing country like Australia or India). In the USA, the saying “it’s not cricket!” — in a mock-upper-class English accent — is a typical way of expressing superiority over those sad Limeys who can’t even appreciate baseball, let alone admit the superiority of the American way of life.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not whining about about some harmless leg-pulling (the English have their own set of insulting stereotypes about Americans).What I want to suggest is that it would be a good idea to stop and reflect for a moment on what the phrase “It’s not cricket!” means and whether a little more of the attitude behind it might not be something worth recapturing. Read the full story