Theory meets Reality
It's Impossible!
Nothing is harder than facing the messiness of reality and the ubiquity of obstacles to achieving. As a result, the everyday challenges of organizational life mean that application of this Framework in designing structures is rarely completely straightforward. Compromises are commonly required.
Shock is a common reaction to the demands of designing in accord with principles. Many years of consulting have revealed three standard protests (or rationalizations for avoiding reality):
- staff of the necessary calibre cannot be found (even: "they do not exist");
- those staff who could do the job refuse to take it; and
- there isn't enough money to pay for the necessary posts.
Nevertheless, the Framework is still valuable as a guide to compromises and a warning of their weaknesses. It may help with:
- realizing stresses that are unavoidable;
- accepting a desired initiative should be abandoned;
- encouraging a radically different initiative or new approach.
Example: Matching Roles to Levels
You may wish a department to have a chief so there will be systems and procedures for all contingencies including overtime, and to ensure that variable expenditures can be efficiently managed. But the size of the service and the number of staff do not justify the salary required to attract a manager of calibre.
Some compromises here are wholly unworkable e.g. unless you can catch a high-flyer, it is futile to appoint a -manager who talks the talk and then expect work output.
Other compromises are weak but possible e.g. extending the role of manager in another larger department to cover the section. This is likely to succeed when the larger department is in the same function, but it becomes progressively less viable the more specialized the section.
A different option might be to enlarge that section by adding related services or by combining it with other too-small sections in the same function.
Example: Stresses during Growth
Borderline states develop during growth as the organization becomes too big to be run at one level (typically or ) and yet not big enough to run at the next level (i.e. or ) even though that is what the leader would like. Proper structuring is therefore difficult.
| The Organization Works Well | The Leader has Ambitions |
|---|---|
|
|
Imagine that an organization operates well at and, after some years, the leader becomes more confident and starts working at , as shown in the diagram above right.
Such work is liable to take the leader frequently off-site and even abroad. The initial «obvious» solution (shown at right) is for the leader to cover both the and work.
However, the availability and time to manage concretely at are just not there. So this soon leads to crises arising, projects losing momentum, and procedures missed leading to compliance violations. If the option to give up on growth is rejected, what is to be done?
«Obvious» Solution #1: Employ (or promote) a assistant/deputy to cope with leader absences as well as helping with growth plans and initiatives. Such a staff-officer will cope with crises, but will probably not be empowered to resolve system issues and handle major -tasks. In any case, the prime focus is elsewhere: helping with the -growth challenge. So the work will still not get done properly.
«Obvious» Solution #2: Employ (or promote) a single line-manager. Here, both the and manager cover the whole outfit. The manager is closer to the realities and will want to maintain a comfort-zone, but the responsibility for such decisions and setting challenging goals lies with the leader. So the two managers will find themselves disputing what is feasible in regard to the systems and services. It can get uncomfortable!
| Solution #1 | Solution #2 |
|
|
A better and more expensive, but still somewhat unsatisfactory solution is to combine #1 and #2 and have two additional staff: one a line manager, and the other a staff-officer.
See next diagram at right.
The problem for the leader is that growth in organisation is not an easy continuum. Instead, complexity develops by discontinuous quantum leaps. Work-level growth means bigger goals that almost invariably entail more staff and more resources.
The Requisite Solution, shown in the diagram below, reveals what growth would look like, and the substantial challenge involved.
The organization will only function well if there is work for at least two and preferably three or more subordinate line-managers. Because services and systems are then divided up, none but the leader will see the full contextual picture. Two or more line-subordinates also justify the appointment of one or more -staff assistants. They provide the leader with generalist support for resource control (e.g. for staffing, costing) and ensuring implementations, as well as contributing specialist expertise to plans and policies.
- Return to the list of additional perspectives.
Originally posted: 8-Feb-2014