If you read from the works
of virtually any recognized management guru, you will come across the notion of
inverting the organization's hierarchy. The theory goes that by putting more
decision-making into the hands of those closest to the "action",
organizations will become faster, more adaptive and more effective. Inverting
the organizational pyramid brings with it the notion of empowerment, in the
service of better organizations.
Well, that's the theory
anyway. If you are a regular reader of our publications, you will be aware that
we are firm supporters of inverting the pyramid, empowering staff, and moving
responsibility and decision-making down to the people that are in contact with
the recipients of government services. But, we do need to put these efforts
into the context of real life, and to be aware of the pitfalls that are in our
paths.
The truth is that many
organizations begin the inverted pyramid journey, but few actually succeed in
reaping the benefits of the effort. It seems that far too many organizations
are developing flat tires, or simply running out of gas, far from the
envisioned destination. We are going to look at ways that organizations and
managers end up perverting the inverted pyramid, so that if you are on the
journey, you will be less likely to fail in your efforts.
Structural Incompatibility
There is no question that
government is arranged in a hierarchical structure, with decision-making,
accountability and responsibility vested first in senior executive, and then
distributed down the line to other executives or managers. One only has to look
at the chain of events that occurs when a public complaint is lodged. Often it
will be sent to the Minister, who, with involvement of executive assistants,
will pass the concern on to the Deputy Minister, who will, in turn, move the
"investigation" to lower levels in the organization. The process is
indeed hierarchical and traditional, moving from top to bottom. The bottom line
is that, structurally, the Minister, and senior executives are ultimately
responsible for what occurs in their bailiwicks. In a sense, since senior
officials are held responsible, it is in their own self-interest to be involved
in decision-making that may ultimately come back to haunt them, and to use
their organizational power to satisfy their own needs and those of people at
the top of the traditional pyramid.
So, we run into a basic
incompatibility. We have governments structured in traditional hierarchical
ways, with power and responsibility at the top. On the other hand we know that
customer service decisions are often best made by those at the bottom of the
organization. Experience tells us that in almost all cases, where there is a
conflict between the notion of empowerment, and the needs and wishes of senior
executive, the needs and wishes of executive will prevail. This doesn't
necessarily occur as a result of the actual people involved, but simply is a
result of working in organizations that are traditionally hierarchical. This
traditional structuring places limits on efforts to move power downward. The
inverted pyramid can be perverted. The new way of doing things is quickly
perceived as window-dressing.
Management Limitations
While structural incompatibilities
make inverting the pyramid difficult, there are other powerful and important
factors that pervert the process. Many of these, unfortunately, fall into the
area of limitations, or short-comings on the part of individual managers and
executives.
We know enough about
empowerment, team development and leadership to state that empowerment and
pyramid inversion require some special qualities on the part of leaders and
managers. When these qualities are not sufficiently developed, the process of
inverting the pyramid can become stalled. We can identify a number of such
competencies or attitudes:
- perseverance in the face of frustration
- consistency in terms of decision-making processes
- trust in the abilities of the staff
- genuine desire to share power
- coaching abilities to help develop core skills on the part of the staff
Lack of Development Resources
lnverting the pyramid
requires new skill sets on the part of staff that are going to be empowered.
The more hierarchical and autocratic an organization is before attempting to
invert the pyramid, the more likely necessary skill components will be lacking.
It isn't surprising. Some people think that empowering staff will be
immediately welcomed by staff, and that given an opportunity, staff will take
the opportunity like a duck takes to water. Experience tells us otherwise.
Staff will show some degree of cynicism and even resistance. And they will
founder at the start, particularly if they are not used to using effective
decision-making, problem-solving and consensus building techniques.
Further, staff in the
inverted pyramid need different kinds of information, compared to those in
traditional organizations. They need to know the "bigger picture" --
the goals of the organization, its purpose, and how they fit in to them. This
enables their decision-making to be consistent with what the organization is
trying to accomplish.
When development resources
are not allocated to build skills, or where staff are not given the information
they require to make empowered decisions, flipping the pyramid will result in
poor decisions. Poor decisions tend to force managers and executives to revert
back to a top-down way of doing things.
The Most Common Failure Pattern
Generally, when pyramid
inversions fail, they don't do so randomly but share a common pattern
Generally, there are multiple causes for the failure, usually including many or
all of the above factors.
Usually, pyramid inversion
adventures are initiated by a well meaning manager. The manager introduces the concept
to staff, and may also suggest mechanisms to empower staff (eg. team structure,
meetings, etc). While the manager may be enthused about the possibilities,
often he or she has not thought out the implications for him/herself. Employee
reactions tend to be mixed -- some will be enthusiastic, some neutral, and some
cynical or resistant.
Within the new structure,
insufficient information will be provided, and as with most changes, some
frustration and confusion will result. But what separates the successful
inversions from the unsuccessful ones is the ability of the players to resolve
the frustration and confusion early on. Failed attempts tend to create more and
more frustration, the longer the process continues.
Given insufficient
information, and lack of core skills, employees have difficulty making
decisions that are acceptable to the manager. What happens is that in most
organizations, the fundamental structural incompatibilities regarding
responsibility and accountability push the manager into reviewing and/or
altering decisions made by staff, or rejecting many suggestions. Staff read
this as being inconsistent, and lose faith in the empowerment
process.
The final stage of collapse
occurs as the manager becomes more frustrated. Initially the manager felt that
empowering staff would require less involvement in everyday decisions, since
these would be taken on by staff. What really happens is that everything slows
down. Decisions are reviewed and re-reviewed. Workload for everyone appears to increase,
rather than decrease. At this point many managers eject from the
plane.
They begin to "take
back" decision-making power, on the assumption that staff are simply
incapable of making effective decisions. Sometimes this "taking-back"
is subtle, and the empowerment strategy is slowly eroded until it disappears.
Or, the manager simply announces that the experiment has ended. We might note
that such defeats often leave the organization worse off than if they hadn't
tried at all.
Avoiding Perverting The Inverted Pyramid
Such failures are often
avoidable with proper preparation, and well thought out implementation
strategies. We look at a few suggestions for engineering success.
1. Recognize that you still
work within a hierarchical structure. Lobby your executive for support and
changes in the ways they interact with you. Further, when introducing your
initiative to staff, indicate that there will be limits on what can be
accomplished. In other words, don't create expectations that can't be fulfilled.
2. Provide empowered staff
with the tools they need to take on their new responsibilities. Be prepared, at
least initially, to coach and support, or to bring in help from outside. Do not
assume that staff will "figure it out".
3. Persevere. These changes
take time, and if you expect changes to occur too quickly, you may give up too
early.
4. Be as consistent as
possible. The more often you take over the reins of a decision, the less likely
staff will perceive you as being sincere. When you absolutely must make
decisions without involving staff, explain why it was necessary.
5. Make sure that frequent "checks" are made to see how the process is going. Don't just leave it.
Encourage staff to assess and evaluate how the changes are going, and to make
suggestions about how to improve it. Make it clear you don't expect everything
to be perfect, but the goal is to improve continuously.
6. Realistically assess
your management style and interpersonal skills. Even your non-verbal behavior
can derail a pyramid inversion. Be aware of subtle messages you may be
sending.
7. Listen! In the inverted
pyramid, the managers listen more than they talk. if nobody wants to talk to
you, then search out the causes and fix them.
No comments:
Post a Comment