The Problem May Not Be With The Org Chart, But The Presumptions Behind It

An article in the October, 2015 edition of The Atlantic Monthly asks the question Are Bosses Necessary? It starts with a description of the initiative at Zappos to abolish managers, eliminate job titles, and take down its old organizational hierarchy in favor of a new form of “self-governance” called holacracy, as described in a new company constitution. Teams are now described as democratic assemblies called “circles” headed by a “lead link.”

The article describes the harsh criticism and resulting controversy stirred up by the move at Zappos, and suggests that the “radical experiment may herald the emergence of a new democratic kind of organization” and suggests it may have been spurred by the increasingly widespread availability of information at all levels of an organization.

People have been talking about the rapid speed of change in the workplace for over 30 years. Linear models of design – plan – build have been challenged by more iterative approaches of build – measure – learn.

Similarly, far from being a new concept, the push toward more “employee empowerment” is fast approaching its middle age, too. Workers have had access, not just to lots information, but to real resources for some time now. Individuals and small groups with cheap, powerful computers have all the tools and resources they need to build things — all by themselves — that people will love and buy.

So what is it that continues to drive businesses like Zappos in this quest, implementing more and more radical programs to give more “power” to employees?

Less structure? Different structure? No titles? Different kinds of titles?

In a business environment like the one we operate in today, it’s probably misleading to focus on an up-or-down vote on the need for or types of structure or titles.

Think of a project. Imagine an organization of one person, charged with getting it done. Assume that one person is you. You probably wouldn’t just charge off and start doing things. More likely, you’d look at your project and then approach it from several perspectives. Let’s assume three to keep it simple: 1. Describe the mission, goals and objectives. 2. Define the work needed to accomplish it. 2. Access the resources to get it done.

While you were in Mission-Definition Mode would you fret that you weren’t “empowered” to define the work that would be required, or to start getting work done? No. Mission-Definer You would focus on the mission-designing work you had in front of you, knowing that soon enough you’d hand off the project to Manager You and to Worker You when it was time for those efforts to be brought to bear on the project. You’d probably find yourself going back and forth between roles multiple times during the project.

During the course of your project, you might find that one or more of these roles comes more easily to you than the others. If you were smart, you’d get help from others on the ones you were struggling with. Pretty soon you’d have yourself an ad hoc team. Not a permanent organization, but one designed to get this particular job done. And when the project was done, you’d dismantle your team, and abolish the temporary titles that would now be no longer needed.

In a previous post, we talked about the making of a movie as a metaphor for today’s work environment: An organization tailored to accomplish a particular task, staying together to get it done and then disbanding.

Take a look at the list of cast and crew for Star Wars: The Force Awakens: Structure? You bet. Hierarchy? Sure. Titles, Roles and Responsibilities? Lots and lots. Does it look like a democracy to you? Not likely.

Do those folks consider Director J.J. Abrams to be their “boss?” Probably not today. But you can be sure that during the months from May through November, 2014, when the principal filming was being done, he certainly was their leader or boss or whatever name you want to put on it.

But when the film wrapped, they all went their separate ways. Maybe the same folks will reconvene in the making of the next episode — or maybe not.

A closer look at the Zappos plan reveals that they too view their new teams as impermanent, expected to form and dissolve and re-form to fit the evolving needs of the business. Maybe they could have done as well to just focus on that and not bother with throwing out the old structure, abolishing old titles or creating new ones or talking about democratizing the process.

What may be weighing everyone down is not the structure or titles, or whether we should have them at all, but the rigidity and permanence underlying org charts and positions and titles and the stifling presumption that the same people who led the last project are necessarily the right people to lead the next one.

Accomplishing anything of any size and scope requires some division of roles and responsibilities, at least for the duration of the project. We need leadership — as much today as ever. And we need roles and responsibilities. It’s about bringing people together to do the right work in the right way in the right time and with the right resources.

The work of today’s organizations is likely to change rapidly — even day to day, project by project. To operate effectively it will be critical to tackle each new piece of work with a fresh look at the organizational structure, the roles needed and the qualifications of the people to fill them.