Organisational Structure

Structure or self management. This is what we're going to be talking about today on this episode of how to lead the podcast for CEOs, founders, and leaders who just want to find that perfect balance of empathy and authority when it comes to leading their team. My name's Kate Waterfall and I'll be sharing some ideas from over 30 years of working in business and leadership development.

Before we start the show, here's a quick reminder that if you want to become a better leader, so you can really enjoy your role, the one that you've strived so hard to get, or even the business that you've created, please do sign up to my newsletter at waterfallhill.co.uk.

You'll also find other resources like my book, How to Lead. So let's kick off with my alter ego. Linda, the bad manager, and see what she has to say about organisational structure. In this particular video, she's actually as bamboozled as the rest of us by all the layers that are in her organization.

Let's see what happens.

“So let me get this straight. There's the C suite, the directors, the VPs, the board, um, then obviously the exec team, the senior leadership team, the management team, leadership team, and the, oh, the heads of, and then there's the operational team and then the team leaders. Is anybody just actually a team member?”

So I think that Linda probably would describe the organizational structure here as the sacred hierarchy of who gets to tell who what to do. And while she is perplexed by the layers of management in this particular video, sounds less like a business structure and more like a, I don't know, an ambitious wedding cake or something.

She was probably party to creating it. But here's the thing. Dreaming up new titles like Deputy Assistant Regional Vice Manager of Pencil Procurement, many organisations are questioning whether we need all these layers of management at all. with, brace yourselves, no management hierarchy whatsoever.

You've probably heard stories that perfectly illustrate our obsession with structure. You know, the sort of thing, maybe a tech company that's grown from 20 to 100 people, their solution, add managers, then add managers to manage those managers, and then add directors to manage those managers, managers, and before long, they had a structure so complex, it needs its own postcode.

The result? Decision making that moves at the speed of a snail having a particularly leisurely day. Now I can hear some of you thinking, but we need structure. Without it, everything will descend into chaos. Well, yes and no. Let's look at it in a bit more detail.

Firstly, let's acknowledge something important. Organisations vary enormously and what works for a hospital, where clear chains of command can literally be life saving, might be completely wrong for a creative agency where innovation thrives on flexibility. There's no one size fits all solution here, despite what Linda's Management Bible of Absolute Control might suggest.

It seems to me there are three main approaches that work in different contexts. First of all, traditional hierarchy. Yep, it can work very well when it's thoughtfully designed. You can imagine, say, a manufacturing company where clear reporting lines and responsibilities are totally crucial for safety and quality control.

But notice I said here, thoughtfully designed, not let's promote everyone until we run out of job title combinations. Then there's the flat structure, you know, where you minimize management layers. Maybe a digital marketing agency might have just three levels, leadership team, team leads, and everyone else.

Decisions happen quickly, communication is direct, and surprisingly, the world doesn't end. Then, there are self-managed teams. Now, this is where it gets quite interesting. There's a book written by a chap called Frederic Lalloux. I hope I've said his name right. And in his book, Reinventing Organisations, he talks about the idea that teams can effectively manage themselves without traditional hierarchy.

Can you hear Linda hyperventilating at the very thought? But here's a fascinating example that I've been told about. Organisations like this software development company have experimented with self-managing teams. They keep some light structure. they're not completely throwing out the organisational chart, but the teams have autonomy over their projects, resources, and even hiring decisions.

The result, productivity goes up. Bureaucracy goes down and somehow work still gets done without 17 layers of approval. However, and this is the really crucial bit, they didn't just announce, you know, right, everyone's self-managed now and hope for the best. They put in place some key elements.

Firstly, clear decision-making frameworks, what people are allowed to make decisions on, where their autonomy and their responsibility starts and finishes. Also transparent communication channels. Communication is absolutely key if you're going to have a self-managed organisation. You can't have it if there's any vagueness at all. Then you need to have regular cross team coordination meetings. So there needs to be that communication and that decision making in a coordinated fashion. So everybody knows what everybody else is doing. It doesn't happen in isolation and in silos. And lastly, and probably the closest to my heart is that people need training.

They need to know how to do self-management. So they need to be trained in self-management skills. You can't just assume that they'll know how to do it automatically. So the key is finding the sweet spot between the chaos and the control. It's much like a garden. You know, you need some structure to help things grow,

But too much control stifles growth entirely. So what might this mean for your organisation? Perhaps you could start by asking yourself some questions. What are the problems we're trying to solve with our current structure? Are all these layers adding value or just adding complexity? Could some decisions be pushed down to team level?

And what's the minimum structure we need to operate effectively? These are quite big questions to ask, and it's really important that you ask them before you make any huge changes.

One particularly successful approach that I've heard about is what they call the skeleton plus model. Create the minimum structure you absolutely need, your skeleton, and then add flexible layers of coordination rather than control. Instead of middle managers, you have project leads or team coordinators who facilitate rather than direct.

It's a subtle difference. So, the truth is most organisations don't need nearly as much control as we think. What they do need is clear goals and expectations, good communications channels, trust in their people's capabilities, and systems for coordination and alignment. So you could replace your middle management layer with team champions, for instance.

So experienced team members who spend part of their time coordinating and supporting, but still remain hands on with actual work. this revolutionary concept means that you've got leaders who actually understand the work they're supporting. As you'll know if you've read my book, How to Lead, I believe in making decisions that are low risk and you could reverse if you have to.

So have a think about that too. The link to buy the book is in the show notes, by the way. So start small. You don't have to throw out your entire org chart tomorrow, although I know Linda's clutching hers protectively right now. Start by experimenting with giving teams more autonomy in specific areas.

See what works. Learn from what doesn't. Remember, the goal of structure isn't control, it's enablement. It should help your people do their best work, not create a corporate version of snakes and ladders where everyone's trying to climb up to the next level.

And most importantly, consider this, if your organisational structure requires a PhD in advanced geometry to understand it, you might just have overcomplicated things just a tad. So what's the takeaway from [all this? While Linda's busy building her management empire, smart organisations are finding their sweet spot between structure and flexibility. Whether you opt for minimal hierarchy or self-managed teams, the key is designing around your actual needs, not just adding layers because it looks good on paper.

So start small, experiment thoughtfully, and remember the best structure is one that enables your people rather than controls them. Unlike Linda's org chart, sometimes less really is more. So that's all for this week. If you've enjoyed this episode of How to Lead, do follow for more leadership insights.

Please like, leave a review and share with your fellow leaders to help spread the word. As you know, I really appreciate the support. If you have any suggestions for future episodes, please do let me know. My contact details are in the show notes. And remember, you don't need to pull your hair out anymore when you think about team management.

You too can enjoy being an authoritative yet empathetic leader. You just need to make a decision to be more intentional about your interactions with others. Have some great tips on how to influence positive change, and of course, a great guide. Listen more, advise less, and lead well. Have a good week.