Building the towers
We’ve just had a new manager join the team at the company I’m working for. To give you a bit of background … I joined this company because it’s small and creative and there were no heirarchies or political games. (Well – ok, there is always some level of politics …)
He’s been here for 2 weeks and 3 days … and already he is planning on adding in a new level of “management”. And so it begins … the heirarchy is coming. (Whether I like it or not.)
But I can’t help thinking … why is this the first exercise new management like to do? (The good old restructure!) Sure, I’m all for change – change can be invigorating and good. But I can’t help wondering if change for the sake of it is just plain old counter productive.
I’m still on the fence as to whether this will be a constructive move (maybe I will be proved wrong about my cynical outlook!) … I guess I’ll just watch from the sidelines and try to embrace the new tower!
Related posts:
- Building your own healthcare community Many years ago when I was in community development, some...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Great thoughts Simone. Thanks for putting them out here for us.
It does seem that as soon as an organisation of people get’s too big (whatever that number may be) some kind of structuring takes place. The reasons given are because of the need to keep some control (not necesarilly a negative thing) of what’s going on. There’s a fear that sneaks in that perhaps some damage may be done, some work may not get done, some synergies may be realised, some creativity may be produced, etc, etc.
But what are the alternatives to structure? Right now you clearly don’t think the magic number has been reached? I also don’t know if you think there is a magic number? you may have another model in your mind. And I’m not engaging here because I feel like challenging you.
I’m engaging because this is a very real question even in the company I’m a part of. Size scares us. Structing seems like an easy solution. But it also doesn’t mean it’s the only solution? It’s certainly the most used one over the past 100 years. But what are the alternatives?
So if we trusted that people would do the right thing? The fear factor comes in when you consider they wont. And the way many organisations are built, there’s someone at the top that has to take the rap if it goes wrong. So when one person is responsable then structuring becomes the safest and possibly easiest way to maintain some control, that should things go wrong you can cover yourself because you have a measurable system in place to show those you are respnsable to.
To put structure down the list of ‘things to do’ the fear-factor needs to be removed in order to explore and entertain an alternate option.
I’m interested in what else is happening in your head on this topic.
Again thanks for raising it
No silver bullet and I don’t have a coherant solution (if I did I’d be cashing in!) Here are my thoughts in no particular order … and open for discussion!
1) Every job needs to have some clear guidelines and goals. If I know what you expect of me at the onset – what I’m expected to deliver, how and when … then I believe there is less to “manage”.
2) I think we need more mentors and less managers.
3) Why is it only the person at the top that has to be accountable? Shouldn’t everyone have some level of accountability. Isn’t that why you pay me?
The other issue I have is that no matter how well structured you think your company is … that doesn’t seem to be a guarantee that things won’t go horribly wrong …
4) I don’t believe that “structure” needs to be defined in the same way that it has been for the last 100 years. Definition of structure – “The interrelation or arrangement of parts in a complex entity”. Structure is also defined as an organism. I don’t know how to explain – other than to say I think that structure needs to be more fluid. It needs to be something less rigid and more “living”. It should be able to grow with the company.
5) Trust first.
6) I think one of the keys to a successful organisation is communication. I think that if you can create a “structure” that supports this, that is half the battle.
7) It’s not that I’m against “structure” – I’m against heirarchies that support “empire building”.
I believe sometimes there is no particular reason for a change like the one you described other than, “That’s the way it’s always been done.” If a guy doesn’t know any other way, then the old fall back is comforting.
What would happen if you asked the manager his rationale for a new layer of management?
I’m wondering whether the issue for the new manager is a need for structure, or a need for self-imposed change? The architypal Lion who needs to kill the cubs when he takes over a pride of lionesses? I’ve watched it happen in so many place when there’s a new boy (specifically boy) on the block.
I’m loving your thoughts about the organicness of structure, Simone.