WhatOrganizationsWork

I'm at a client this week, and I'm puzzled about what to suggest for their organization. They have a hierarchical organization, with functional roles working together on projects. For example, they have development and test functional groups working together under technical leads to work concurrently on particular projects together.

The projects are working well, but the cost to bring people up to speed is quite high. The managers do all the estimation, so growing new managers is expensive. The managers and senior technical leads do all the technical architecture/design work, so it's hard for devs and testers to learn the rest of the system.

The problem I want to help them see and solve is that right now, all the decision-making is happening at the highest level of the organization. They need to push that down so the managers can get to the job of management (they do the bare minimum, not what needs to be done).

I've been reading about organizations, and I think this one is a cross between a standard hierarchy (person at top makes decisions) with a hetarchy (where the responsible people make decisions--here the managers). I *think* I want to suggest they move more towards responsible autonomy.

So, here's my question. Did any of those words mean anything to you, or does it sound like I've been reading the dictionary again? Do you have any experience pushing decision-making down in the organization? If so, did you call it something?

If you're wondering, the reason I'm suggesting the devs and testers make more decisions is that I think this group is on the verge of growing, but their current practices will make hiring and integrating people painful.

I just started writing this down, so I'm not sure if I've been articulate. -- JohannaRothman 2006.02.06

I have worked in several hierarchical organizations where the top managers talked about pushing decision-making down to lower levels. The vast majority of the time, that was just talk. They never pushed to decision making down.

My current organization has much of the decision-making at lower levels. This happened by accident. In many ways, things are out of control now. The people at the lower levels making decisions do not report back up what they have done. The top-level managers don't know how the public taxpayer's money is being spent. So now we are struggling with how to report what is happening.

This is tough - I just thought of something - this is a CHANGE. Johanna, I believe you know about CHANGE and the change model and how tough that can be.

DwaynePhillips 6 February 2006

Sounds like the difference between socialism and capitalism. There are inefficiencies in the system from not making decisions where the information to support those decisions is located. Of course a switch from socialism to capitalism usually takes a revolution or lots of time. (BIG CHANGE)

Can you chart the decisions and the information required to make them? Maybe if they see that they can see the way to move a few decisions down the ladder. (SMALL CHANGE)

KurtSimmons 6 February 2006

Building on Kurt's idea of charting decisions:

My experience is that there's more involve in a decision than deciding. And that's where senior managers get twitchy about pushing decision making down the hierarchy. They're worried that people who don't understand the implicaitons will decide to move the headquarters to Wichita or somesuchthing.

If you break down the parts of a decision--so senior managers know that they still set the boundaries-- it's easier for them to turn over (the appropriate parts) of decision making.

EstherDerby 020605

Johanna, how big is the organization and how fast is it growing? That may affect how much you can do at a time.

I like the idea of more autonomy, especially when I get to decide:-), but I am working at a site where I can't find anything or even if it exists because every group does stuff themselves. I am having different problems than Dwayne is, but the cause is similar.

SherryHeinze 2006.02.07

Yeah, JR, you have been reading again. Stop that. It'll give you ideas and then who knows what will happen.

Three thoughts occur to me:

What do they want? What would they like their future to be like? You suggest that they are going to grow (in what, btw, head count? That's a consequence, not a cause. What benefit are they tryng to grow?) Do they think so? Do they see a connection between the things you want to change and what they would like to have happen? Start there.
The language of autonomy has to be part of allowing autonomy to happen. You can't in fact, "push down" autonomous decision making: "I require that you be 30% more autonomous in exactly the following ways by March. Give me a plan which I will review, then monitor." Can't happen that way. Won't work.
The convenient targets in a conversation about autonomy in an organization are the big shots. There is some truth to this, as they swagger about, directing in all directions. Yet, there are people taking that direction. The largest challenge will be engendering the taking of autonomy by the so-called rank and file. Most of the people in the organization will be highly adapted to the less autonomous way they are now. All will have come to some kind of equilibrium; most actual comfort, some a comfortable, stylized discomfort.

Ask the folks in the teams: "What would you like to contribute that you think you can contribute successfully, that isn't possible right now? How do we change that?" Their responses and the way they respond will give you some idea what you're dealing with.

Many folks aren't like you (or me) - we take the autonomy whether it's "given" or not, which carries its own consequences. I almost said "take the appropriate autonomy", but that's just my opinion. (The fact that I'm exactly right - just ask me - impresses those who disagree not at all.)

-- JimBullock 2006.02.07 (That's my answer, whether I had permission or not.)

Johanna: "They need to push that down so the managers can get to the job of management."

I suggest you rewrite the above sentence so its specific about who "they" are and what "management" is. I suspect it may lead you to a clearer definition of what you see (state) and what you suggest (input). Answer the questions: What are the results of continuing in the current state? What different results will happen with a different style of management? What side effects are likely from changing?

SteveSmith 2006.02.08

Lest we forget, in any hierarchical organization, MOST decisions are made at the lowest level, though the management literature tends to ignore these. (There's that problem with reading too much, again.) And don't say these aren't important decisions. For example, there's the decision to come to work in the morning, the decision not to sabotage the whole works, the decision to carry out the management's decisions, the the decision to learn something today that will improve the work ...

Perhaps the most important effect of upper management decisions is how they affect the decision-making of the people at the lowest levels, where the important decisions are made. If you move to Wichita, what will that do to the people's decision-making? - JerryWeinberg 2006.02.12

So, the most important decisions for upper management are the ones that affect the decision-making of the rest of the organization.

So, the most important criterial for these decisions is how they affect the decision-making of the rest of the organization.
That seems like a good explanation for the years' ago chairman of Sony who said: "I am the soul of the organization." Also helps explain why they can't pound a nail in a room full of hammers lately. Misplaced their soul.
-- JimBullock, 2006.10.02 (QED. And why is this hard to figure out, again?)

Jim writes, ...Misplaced their soul.

Bull's eye. Bravo! Wonderful.

SteveSmith 2006.10.02

When the setter leaves a perfect ball hanging at just the right spot above the net, it's pretty easy to hit a winner. (Pardon the sports - vollyball - analogy.) -- JimBullock 2006.10.03

Updated: Wednesday, October 4, 2006