Posts from the ‘Transparency’ Category
In my two last blog posts I discussed the difference between individuals and roles. I decided to focus on this issue as it in many ways is the foundation for organization design. This is particularly clear if you consult Elliot Jaques’ writings. Jaques made this difference clear from the beginning, by pointing out that one should define an organization as a set of roles and not as a collection of individuals. So without the concept of role you can have “people development”, but you cannot have “organization design”. Let me conclude this series of blog posts by considering briefly the issue of fairness.
When planning an organization design process, most people will agree that one should first define roles, and then consider the individuals that might fit the different roles that have been defined. The main rationale is to ensure that the organization’s strategic goals and the design requirements are met, rather than constructing an organization that suit the particular individuals that inhabit key roles today.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, focusing on roles rather than individuals may also be in the long time interest of the employees of the organization. Mixing up roles and individuals tends to increase the level of “politics” in any decision process (I provided an example in my blog post last week). By focusing on roles, one is able – at least in principle – to create a systematic and transparent process where job requirements are explicitly defined and where the qualifications of alternative candidates are evaluated.
I attended a talk by Stephen Drotter (co-author of the Leadership Pipeline) a few years ago where he made a similar point in discussing the role of HR. He said that HR traditionally has focused on the the supply of labor – that is, on people (e.g., by increasing the supply of labor by recruiting and retaining people). He said that the first priority should instead be to focus on the work to be done – on the demand (e.g., by making sure that every job is necessary and adding value, and that every job is properly defined and placed at the right level). He then went on to state that:
“…people are treated better, developed more completely and included more appropriately if our thinking and actions start on the demand side.”
Between 2000 and 2003, I was working for Aker Solutions, a global engineering company with around 20,000 employees. One of my responsibilities was to serve as project manager for the annual employee survey. The survey was taken very seriously by top management and we developed a follow-up process to ensure that something would be done with the results.
After I had analysed the results from the first survey, I presented the key findings to the HR director. Although some organizational strengths had been identified in my analysis, the feedback from people was generally quite critical and indicated a big potential for improvement in business processes, HR policies, organization, and in leadership more generally.
I asked the HR director how we should communicate the findings. He suggested posting the findings on the internet. I didn’t quite believe what I heard so I asked him to clarify: “I assume you mean the intranet – we are not going to publish our internal data on the internet, for all to see?” No, I had not misunderstood – he did mean the internet (the company’s web site). Despite my doubts, I wrote a summary of the key results, which were published on the web shortly thereafter.
In retrospect I think Aker’s HR director was on to something. During the last few years, one dramatic change is the increased level of transparency. As a leader, you cannot hide bad results or ineffective internal practices anymore. If you don’t actively disclose the challenges that your organization faces, people inside and even outside the organization will soon know about them anyway – via discussion forums or blogs (or sites such as glassdoor.com, which posts anonymous company reviews written by employees.)
There are several possible implications of this change. With so many unofficial channels of information, employees and other stakeholders may to a lesser extent put faith in “official” information. If so, it suggests that Corporate Communications departments may need to change their focus from the production of glossy brochures and annual reports to considering how you actually create and sustain a reputation.
But there are also implications for organization design. In the past, leaders could sometimes get away with ignoring or delaying the resolution of difficult organizational problems, or, if they did choose to do something about them, invite only a handful of executives to participate in a “secret” re-design process. In the age of the transparent organization, such an approach will hardly build the trust that one is dependent upon as a leader.
To be transparent, we should continuously evaluate how effective our organization is. We may not want to post all our internal data on the internet but we need to be open and honest with our key stakeholders about the challenges we face. I also think we should more frequently invite the real experts on the organization – the employees – to participate in the re-design process. With a proper way of involving people there will be much less of a need for venting frustrations on external discussion forums.
