Flat Structures - Really?!

As Managers, what is our job? Once, many years ago, when I was promoted into a senior management role, my then boss informed me that “I didn’t have to ‘do’ anything”. It took me some time to realise what he meant. He didn’t, of course, mean that I sat around, drank coffee and read the papers all day! There were things to ‘do’ – but more in the sense of taking the lead, of helping others to 'do the ‘do’'.

At the end of the day, a Manager’s job is to create an environment which maximises what can be delivered from those components (people, money, capital items etc.) for which he is accountable, however it is appropriate to measure that delivery: profit, service, quality... Which is fair enough, isn’t it?

But often there are other criteria that, whilst we may not realise it at the time, cut completely across that ‘enabler’ ambition and can critically compromise what we can contribute – and therefore, most likely, what others can contribute too. Take the notion of the “flat hierarchy”.

Logically very sound: not too much management; clear line-of-sight between ‘top’ and ‘bottom’; people feeling ‘more connected’ somehow; less bureaucracy, and so on. But in practice?

If you accept the Manager’s role as an enabler, then this means that he or she has to have the time and capacity to help their team: to mentor; to suggest; to coach. Essentially, through the distribution of their experience and expertise, they must enhance what their direct reports can achieve. It fits with the maximisation of the delivery of the 'components' they have at their disposal. If we compromise that, then surely what a manager can contribute is diminished somehow – and if he or she gives less to their team, then those next down the line already start at a disadvantage…

So let's assume we have a flat structure with 111 people and just three layers, top-to-bottom. To achieve this, every one of the eleven managers (the top man and his immediate team) needs ten direct reports to create that organisation.

Perhaps you are one of those managers, and that you are lucky enough to work just a 40 hour week. Depending on your role, you may spend 50% of your week on projects, initiatives, administration. Then there will be the meetings you have to attend outside of your function or team, perhaps with customers, or Finance, or HR. Say another 15%. Then there’s that unplanable ‘stuff’ that crops up (usually from email!) that takes away another 10%.

Where does that leave us? 75% gone, 25% left. That’s just 10 hours in a week to share with your direct reports. If you have ten of them, that's just one hour per person, per week. Is that enough to help them, their teams; to mentor, suggest, and coach? Really? Not only are you stretched as an individual, your people don't start with the full boost you could be giving them.

There is a 'multiplier effect' at work here too. From the top manager to the middle management layer, and then - with those 'middle managers' being at less than 100% effective - down to the real 'doers' in the team.

But what happens if the 111 team has four layers? Then each manager might have just four or five direct reports. Suddenly those free 10 hours per week now gives you around 2 hours for each of your direct reports. If your input is of value (and you would hope it would be!) then all your people should benefit accordingly.

It would take a scientific study to prove the point, but I would be confident that the overall measurable loss of 'effective input' or productivity cascading downwards from management layers would be greater with the former case - two layers only, ten direct reports per manager - than with the second - three layers, more managers, but only four or five direct reports per manager.

You might object that in the 'fatter' organisation, there is a greater level of man management admin and/or non-productive time from a greater percentage of the 111 team (i.e. 21 'managers' vs. 11 'managers'). This ignores the greater effective loss from the flat organisation as suggested above. Also, the truth is that there is no reduction in man management admin delivered by the flat structure: for example, appraisals for all 110 people don’t just go away. They still have to be carried out, and with fewer people to execute them, those eleven managers can only be less effective in this area - and their output of poorer quality.

And it is worse than that of course. In the flat structure, bottom to top needs only 2 promotions – which effectively means that the top 11 positions are ‘blockers’, and the remaining 100 people are looking upwards, seeing no possibility of progression and advancement – unless of course you make the ratio of middle managers to the top guy maybe 1 to 12…

And don't forget, the extra time for managers offered in the deeper structure will more likely be ‘quality’ time. And the “dead man’s shoes” scenario in the second organisation isn’t quite so prevalent.

Are you working in an organisation that's 'too flat'? Of course, you can go too far the other way. A 111 team with six levels of management would clearly be inefficient. There is a reason that 'best practice' suggests the optimal number of direct reports for any manager is between four and seven.

In any event, don’t assume that a flat structure is a good structure; it may not always be the case…

-*-

About the author / copyright

Ian Gouge is widely experienced in business-driven Information Technology, culminating in significant achievements majoring on organisational and process change, and with a proven track record in turning around / re-engineering IT functions. He possesses in-depth experience of change, transformation, IT delivery, customer and supplier engagement, and broad International exposure. Also the author of management books on the topics of IT Strategy and Project Management, the impact on IT of e-Business, and the IT Organisation.

This material is copyright of Ian Gouge © 2014. All rights reserved. Any similarity to actual IT or business organisations is entirely coincidental and unintentional.

Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following:

·         you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only;

·         you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal and non-commercial use, but only if you acknowledge the author and blog as the source of the material.

You may not, except with express written permission from the author, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.

The New Dr Who - A Lesson in Management

Had enough? Loyalty tested to the extreme? Prepared to just walk away? Welcome to the world of the two million or 33% of “Dr Who” viewers who are feeling exactly the same about the new series. Why is that? And how can a legendary UK science fiction series offer us lessons in management?

Well, in two ways: the effect of the new ‘boss in the blue box’, and the script he is working to.

It is inevitable that the new Doctor disturbs the equilibrium we have become accustomed to; there’s a changed approach, a different style. Suddenly we have to accommodate a different language, a new set of demands; we’re not immediately sure if this new Doctor is a good guy or a bad guy. He seems a bit grumpy / serious / flighty / abrasive etc. etc. (add and delete as appropriate). And it may be a style that doesn’t sit easily with us. We came to love the way the last guy flew around, madly, fixing things, and saving the Earth for three whole series; we aren’t used to this new, growling, uneven and unpredictable bizarreness. Even his conversation is haphazard.

“I’m sick of listening to you!” Clara shouts - and well she might. We know how she feels.

Now read ‘Manager’ for ‘Doctor’…

Of course, it isn’t all their fault - nor your fault as the new manager. You can only be yourself; you have your own style, the way you communicate. You can’t be the other guy. Nor should you be - or try to be. I hate to say it, but you have to be “authentic” and “genuine”… And the least you can be is aware and conscious of the environment in which you find yourself. In many ways you need to listen more than speak, converse more than command, explain more than dictate - after all, you’re new to this skin and, as we all know, for a Time Lord to function effectively after a regeneration takes a little - well - time…

It is also possible that your ‘script’ (aka Job Description or Objectives) might just be a little different to your predecessor. After all, we are paid to do a specific job. It could be that the emphasis you have been given is different to that of the regime that went before - and in that case, perhaps you can’t help but be different to the old Doctor/manager everyone used to love. [Of course, the whole thing is much easier if they hated the last guy!!]

One of the challenges you might face is if you are expected to - or want to - make a ‘big impact’. For some people, this can be more important than anything else: “hit the ground running”; “show them who’s Boss”; “take no prisoners”… Just be cognisant that there are many ways to achieve all of these things and more without running around like a bull in the proverbial china-shop.

In any new situation - managerial or Time Lord-like - the watchwords should be balance, patience and humility. You can still achieve an awful lot very quickly. And if you get it right, you won’t lose a third of your audience doing so.

 -*-

About the author / copyright

Ian Gouge is widely experienced in business-driven Information Technology, culminating in significant achievements majoring on organisational and process change, and with a proven track record in turning around / re-engineering IT functions. He possesses in-depth experience of change, transformation, IT delivery, customer and supplier engagement, and broad International exposure. Also the author of management books on the topics of IT Strategy and Project Management, the impact on IT of e-Business, and the IT Organisation.

This material is copyright of Ian Gouge © 2014. All rights reserved. Any similarity to actual IT or business organisations is entirely coincidental and unintentional. 

Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following: 

·         you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only; 

·         you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal and non-commercial use, but only if you acknowledge the author and blog as the source of the material. 

You may not, except with express written permission from the author, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.

The Seven Cs of Exemplary Management

Many of the components designed to provide an effective and results-oriented management framework are actually based on relatively simple concepts. The problems that we encounter most often are not related to the understanding of or endorsement of these concepts, but to their execution. This execution is often compromised by an unhealthy mix of inappropriate or inadequate use of tools, pressure or volume of work, and sheer human fallibility.

 

Inappropriate or inadequate tools?

• The addiction to e-mail
• The pathological dependence on spreadsheets
• The abdication of results based on such inadequate, inappropriate or poorly used software…
• ...or blaming failure on missing software!

 

…And the absence of good quality, simple processes that work for us as managers – because we each work in subtly different ways, and one of the tricks is to unlock those things that allow us as individuals to contribute the most.

 

Pressure of work?

• —Because we all have too much, don’t we?
• —Because often we can’t see the wood for the trees?
• —Because, no matter what we say, we actually aren’t very good at time management / prioritisation / communication / delegation (delete as appropriate!)

 

…And our failure to give ourselves an effective and simple management framework only makes matters worse, deepens the spiral, forces us to cut corners, make mistakes, take inappropriate risks, make shaky assumptions or decisions.

 

Human fallibility?

• The desire for the path of least resistance perhaps…
• Or that we just pay lip service to core principles…
• Or the assumption that ‘people know what we mean / think / want’…
• Or the belief that it will all come right in the end…
• Or the conscious decision to ignore that really bad feeling we have somewhere in the pit of our stomach…
• Or the aversion to conflict and challenge…
• Or the difficult decision…
• Or the inappropriate trust / mistrust in others…
• Or the profound challenge of honesty…

 

So how can we capture the core components of a good management framework? How can we elucidate them simply, and in such a way that we can fashion a mode of working that fits us, suits our style, and gives us the best chance of success?

 

What are the ‘Seven Cs of Exemplary Management’?

1. Commitment
2. Clear Expectations
3. Clear Actions
4. Control
5. Commerciality
6. Communication
7. Change

Commitment

 

…in the sense of belief; of believing in what you are doing.

 

The premise is simple: if you believe in what you are trying to do, achieve, deliver, then the commitment will follow. But the converse is true, of course: if don’t believe in it…

 

…maybe you should ask yourself if you should be doing something different, taking a different approach, aiming at a different goal.

 

Or maybe someone else should be doing it for you!?

 

If it’s right but not working and you can change it, then change it.

 

You will be more committed – and successful – if you strive to do three things you believe in, as opposed to eight things you do not.

  

Clear Expectations

 

…in the sense of knowing what the overall objectives are.

 

Do you believe that your people understand what you need from them, and what their scope of responsibility is?

 

…because if they don’t, they can never deliver what you need.

 

Ask yourself, if you were in their shoes, would you be clear?

 

And a suggestion: brief your team members on what you need them to do for you – then two days later, have them come back and present their interpretation of those expectations to you! This has the advantage of establishing firm mutual understanding, and in their presentations you have a better record of expectations than in any out-dated job description.

  

Clear Actions

 

…in the sense that actions – when they are written down at all! – are rarely that clear. And why? Because we are lazy, we make assumptions that everyone knows what XYZ means – and because most of us hate producing (or reading!) minutes.

 

So an action needs to have: one owner, a deliverable, potentially a description of the format or content, and a date. If it does not, how can you possibly have any confidence it will be delivered – and in some cases, how will you know when it has been? How can the action owner know what he or she has to do?

 

Oh yes, and if you aren’t going to bother to check and chase actions and make them mean something, then don’t even bother in the first place…

  

Control

 

…in the very narrow sense of knowing what your people are working on, what the pipeline of demand is, what the unused – or over-committed – capacity is…

 

It’s all about Demand and Resource planning.

 

Your job, as a manager, is to get things done with the resources you are given. If you have no control over that one critical, elemental, finite component, then what chance have you got to be successful?!

 

You will under-commit and waste money; over-commit and miss deadlines; make poor judgement calls, erroneous decisions – and perhaps worse than any of these things, your team will see that you are not in control, and you will lose their respect and commitment.

  

Commerciality

 

…because one way or another, everything has a cost – and hopefully a benefit.

 

Which means that everything you and your team does must have an impact, somewhere…

 

Cost is easy when it’s money out of the door, but it could be time, an impact on risk, diversion from strategy, the opportunity cost of doing (or not) something else – and then the more intangible things like impact on staff morale…

 

…and for each cost, there must be benefits that could be articulated in the same language.

 

For the big things, think cost & benefit. Try and articulate them. Often, when you are in two minds about something, this might just sway you in the right direction

  

Communication

 

…that old chestnut! But let’s face it, communication is almost a ‘no win’ topic, because different people want different things: monthly, weekly, paper, email, Town Hall, detailed, personal, high-level, data-based, informal… So:

• Rule #1 – do it!
• Rule #2 – choose what works for you in terms of format & timing
• Rule #3 – make it relevant
• Rule #4 – ensure the quality is good (poor quality communication is unforgivable in a manager!)
• Rule #5 – don’t let it slip!

Adhere to these rules and, after a while, most people will come to accept what you are trying to do – and then they will start to expect it, and if the quality and relevance is there, maybe even come to look forward to it!

  

Change

 

…in the sense that most of what we do is predicated on making change happen – and for the manager, in initiating and driving change.

 

Even in the most stable of environments things are constantly changing – and so they should be, as this is the only way we can make things ‘better’. The good manager can identify those things that need changing, and can the implement the change in a controlled and positive fashion.

 

‘Change’ is one of the things we need to believe in, and should always be on the agenda.

 

And don’t be seduced by notions of innovation. Innovation is just a marketing word for Change…

  

What are the ‘Seven Cs of Exemplary Management’?

 

Commitment – believe in what you do

 

Clear Expectations – know what the objectives are

 

Clear Actions – who, what, when – and chase!

 

Control – demand and resource management

 

Commerciality – everything has a cost and benefit

 

Communication – do it how it works for you

 

Change – now, tomorrow, always..!

 

 -*-

About the author / copyright

Ian Gouge is widely experienced in business-driven Information Technology, culminating in significant achievements majoring on organisational and process change, and with a proven track record in turning around / re-engineering IT functions. He possesses in-depth experience of change, transformation, IT delivery, customer and supplier engagement, and broad International exposure. Also the author of management books on the topics of IT Strategy and Project Management, the impact on IT of e-Business, and the IT Organisation.

This material is copyright of Ian Gouge © 2014. All rights reserved. Any similarity to actual IT or business organisations is entirely coincidental and unintentional.

Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following:

·         you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only;

·         you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal and non-commercial use, but only if you acknowledge the author and blog as the source of the material.

You may not, except with express written permission from the author, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.