Tag Archives: Organizational structure

Reimagine Your Organizational Structure to Advance Strategy and Delight Customers

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

rethink organizational structureBalancing everyday operational demands with strategic growth objectives is a persistent challenge for business leaders in all sizes of organizations. You might experience the pull between driving new business, delivering consistent quality, and ensuring your internal teams collaborate efficiently. Whenever you suspect that your current structure no longer supports your strategic goals—or if you spend more time on firefighting than innovation—consider rethinking how you organize roles and responsibilities.

After revisiting (or at least confirming or validating) your strategic direction, allow yourself to start with a blank canvas and truly reinvent how your organization runs.

In this article, I share my thoughts about synthesizing ideas from five theorists’ models of human behavior—DISC  (originally developed by Dr. William Moulton Marston on behavioral preferences), Driving Forces (originating from the research of Dr. Gordon Allport and Dr. Eduard Spranger on motivators and later expanded into modern assessment models), Axiology (based on the work of Dr. Robert S. Hartman, defining Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemic thinking styles), and PSIU (from Lex Sisney’s Organizational Physics, which discusses organizational roles)—and applying them to specific managerial functions.

While these concepts may initially appear theoretical, they can offer practical, proven paths to a more agile, strategically aligned organization.

 

1. Align Your Structural Roles With Your Strategy

‍Your business strategy should guide every structural decision, not vice versa. Are you planning to grow or scale by introducing new products or services? Is one major goal to strengthen customer relationships while targeting emerging market niches?

By clarifying your strategic intent, company goals, and objectives, you can determine the proper emphasis for each role. Notice that I am referring to functional roles here rather than titles. Functional roles are where the organization’s work gets done. Don’t fall in love with titles.

  • Producer-oriented roles (P) focus on efficiency, getting results quickly, and driving revenue.
  • Stabilizer-oriented roles (S) create consistency, ensure quality control, and stabilize processes.
  • Innovator-oriented roles (I) experiment with new ideas, explore fresh markets, and encourage continuous improvement.
  • Unifier-oriented roles (U) cultivate positive team dynamics, manage stakeholder relationships, and build a strong internal culture.

For instance, if your primary differentiator is high-speed, cutting-edge product development, the right individuals must occupy all key Innovator roles in your organizational chart. On the other hand, if exceptional customer service is your hallmark, ensuring that those mission-critical roles are filled by Unifiers and Stabilizers—people who excel at building trust and delivering consistent experiences—will significantly impact your organization’s foundation.

 

2. Recognize Behavioral and Motivational Drivers

While the PSIU framework establishes a foundation, using tools such as DISC and Driving Forces can enhance the experience. They provide insights into how your team members prefer to communicate, tackle problems, and stay motivated.

For instance:

  • High Dominance (D) in DISC often aligns with Producer-focused roles, such as sales or operations leadership. These individuals tend to prefer making quick decisions and taking decisive action.
  • High Influence (I) might indicate a strong Unifier or Innovator who rallies the team or dreams up fresh approaches.
  • High Steadiness (S) frequently excels in Stabilizer roles, protecting consistency and ensuring internal and external customers receive dependable service.
  • High Conscientiousness (C) is best suited for areas where accuracy, process, and detail are paramount—think compliance, quality assurance, or data analysis.

Beyond observing behavioral preferences, you’ll also want to consider what drives each individual. Some prefer collaborative environments, prioritizing people-first approaches, while others thrive on building systems or refining processes. Mapping these natural behavioral preferences to your structure keeps people engaged.‍

Beyond behavior, Axiology helps determine how people prioritize decision-making:

  • Systemic Thinkers (structured, big-picture planners) thrive in Stabilizer and Producer roles.
  • Extrinsic Thinkers (action-oriented, results-driven) excel in Producer and Innovator roles.
  • Intrinsic Thinkers (relationship-focused, people-driven) make strong Unifiers and customer-centric leaders.

If you assign a systemic thinker to a high-pressure sales role, they may struggle with rapid decision-making. Conversely, placing an extrinsic thinker in a rigid compliance role might lead to frustration. Aligning roles with behavioral tendencies and cognitive preferences should help reduce costly turnover and enable people to excel in their preferred behavioral zone.

 

3. Pair Strengths and Roles Across Key Functions

You can apply these principles in every functional area of your business—even if you only have a few employees:

  • Sales and Customer Relationships: Identify tendencies toward Producer or Unifier roles. Producers strive to meet deadlines and drive growth, while Unifiers naturally manage interpersonal relationships and foster loyalty among clients and team members.
  • Operations and Production: You likely need Stabilizers who craft reliable, repeatable processes. If your operations require strict adherence to standards (like a restaurant, manufacturing company, or accounting or engineering firm), seek individuals wired to be highly conscientious and steady.
  • Innovation and Product Development: Innovators thrive on fresh ideas, so give them the space and resources to brainstorm and test. Your organization’s Stabilizers will help ensure viability and feasibility. Even a small business can benefit from designating an individual or a small team to explore new offerings or ways to stand out in the marketplace.
  • Finance, HR, and Compliance: Stabilizers can excel at financial processes and risk management because they spot trouble early. Unifier strengths, meanwhile, help maintain cultural cohesion and ensure HR invests in the right talent.

As you assess the roles within your small, medium, or large enterprise, strive to determine how these four “buckets” best align with your strategic needs. Rather than relying on titles, define roles by function. A “Director of Operations” might need a strong Producer mindset in one company but a Stabilizer approach in another. The key is mapping responsibilities to the right blend of PSIU, DISC, and Axiology attributes, and each department or function should have a clear mission staffed by individuals whose natural strengths match the role’s demands.

 

4. Facilitate Collaboration and Cohesion

Even if you effectively organize each role, you still need a well-thought-out strategy for collaboration. Producers often seek immediate results and can become impatient with lengthy brainstorming sessions, while Innovators, who enjoy challenging existing norms, may feel frustrated when their ideas encounter immediate opposition. Unifiers typically desire harmony and focus on relationships but might struggle with discussions that depend too heavily on taking a deep dive into data. Stabilizers and Unifiers perform best when following clear guidelines but may resist change if asked to adapt quickly. In high-stakes environments, conflict can arise when one emphasizes harmony while the other insists on immediate performance.

Train and then encourage people to see these differences and capitalize on them as complementary, not adversarial. Discuss each person’s natural style and emphasize the importance of every perspective. This approach fosters mutual respect and reduces the risk of building taller and wider silos as the business grows.

 

5. Treat the Structure as a Living System

Far too many businesses create an org chart, hang it on the wall (or bury it in a digital folder), and never update it. As your business evolves—by entering a new market, launching an innovative product, pivoting to a different customer segment, or transitioning into a new phase of business maturity—it’s essential to revisit your structure.

Ask:

  • Is my team still in alignment with the core strategic priorities?
  • Do our roles and responsibilities align with our current reality and future goals?
  • Am I underusing certain team members with strengths in areas we urgently need?

Adjusting roles doesn’t always require hiring new staff. Sometimes, you may identify an internal candidate who excels at generating big ideas (Innovator) but currently holds a back-office position. Alternatively, you might find that the person managing your operations is more of a Producer than a Stabilizer, and they would likely achieve better results in a role that demands fast-paced action and decisive leadership.

 

6. Stay Focused on Customer Impact

Any structural change should have a positive impact on both your internal and external customers. A well-designed organization responds faster to inquiries, delivers consistent quality, and proactively solves internal and external customer problems. Don’t optimize for efficiency alone—optimize for the customer experience your business wants to deliver. Consider how shifts in internal alignment might boost the overall experience you provide to all your stakeholders.

 

Conclusion

Rethinking your organization’s structure may initially seem daunting, but the benefits are significant. By aligning roles with your strategy and using frameworks like PSIU, DISC, and Driving Forces, you minimize friction, enhance strengths, and foster an environment where your team can thrive. The aim isn’t to randomly shuffle titles but to establish a structure that allows your organization to realize its strategic vision while delighting both your internal and external customers every step of the way.

By structuring your business this way, you establish a foundation that can scale, adapt, and better meet the changing demands of your market. As you grow, revisit your setup, analyze new opportunities, and reshape roles that no longer align. With an integrated framework and a commitment to leveraging people’s strengths, your organizational structure becomes a competitive advantage, not just a chart on your office wall.

Unlocking the Power of a Well-Designed Organization

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

[Editors note – This is the first of our 5-part series to help ensure your organization becomes hardwired for efficiency and effectiveness. These articles will reflect our current thoughts as well as insights gleaned from Lex Sisney’s book- Designed to Scale: How to Structure Your Business for Exponential Growth]

Scaling your business efficiently and effectively is not just a competitive advantage—it’s a necessity.

Organizations risk becoming bogged down by inefficiencies, miscommunication, and missed opportunities whenever significant growth occurs. As the complexity of operations, decision-making, and communication increases, it often overwhelms the founder and long-term executive team members.

Sisney provides a roadmap for successfully building organizations that can scale while maintaining agility and focus. A core message of Designed to Scale is that scaling isn’t just about growth—it’s about growing in a manner that can be sustained over a longer term, aligning resulting growth with the organization’s core values and long-term vision. Many companies chase growth without considering whether their structures, processes, culture, and access to financial resources – think working capital and cash flow – can support it. Often, this situation leads to an unmanageable organization, resulting in declining performance and morale—a scenario Designed to Scale aims to prevent.

Consistent with our messages in previous articles, a deliberate, strategic approach to scaling begins with a clear understanding of the organization’s purpose and values, serving as the foundation for decision-making and guiding the organization through growth and change. By staying true to these values, companies help themselves ensure that their expansion aligns with their long-term vision rather than being driven by short-term opportunities.

Another key message is the importance of building scalable systems and processes. As organizations grow, operational complexity increases, which can become overwhelming without robust systems. Designed to Scale emphasizes investing in systems that can manage this complexity without becoming bottlenecks, from communication and decision-making processes to IT infrastructure.

However, it’s not just about implementing new systems—it’s about designing flexible and adaptable systems. Executives must ensure that their organizations respond quickly to new challenges and opportunities. Truly scalable systems evolve with the organization (rather than become rigid structures that limit innovation). Accomplishing this feat is not always as easy as it sounds at first blush.

Let’s pivot to discussing the role of leadership during periods of significant scaling. Influential leaders inherently understand that their role has to evolve as their organization grows. While leaders are often involved in day-to-day operations in the early stages, as the company grows, they must become adept at shifting their focus toward building and maintaining systems and culture that enable continued growth. This organizational growth phase requires a skill set emphasizing strategic thinking, delegation, and the ability to inspire and align a growing team around a shared vision.

Finally, Sisney underscores the importance of culture in the scaling process. A strong, positive culture drives success, providing the energy and motivation to overcome growth challenges. However, maintaining that culture becomes increasingly more complicated as organizations scale. Designed to Scale offers practical advice on preserving and nurturing culture during rapid expansion, ensuring it remains a source of strength.

We believe that all organizations can benefit from a comprehensive approach to strategically and sustainably grow their organizations. Companies will unlock more of their potential and achieve long-term success by focusing on purpose, scalable systems, adaptive leadership, and creating a solid culture.

In the next installments of this series, we will discuss these concepts in more depth and provide actionable steps that you can execute. We will offer you insights, strategies, and practical tools to navigate the complexities of scaling and continue to emerge more robust and resilient.

Architecting Success: Strategic Insights for Selecting Your Organization’s Ideal Structure

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

Senior leaders must occasionally revisit and evaluate several critical factors to determine the best organizational structure for their business, ensuring alignment with the company’s strategic goals, operational efficiency, and organizational culture.

Here is a detailed analysis of these considerations:

Business Strategy and Objectives

◦ Alignment with Goals: The organization’s strategic goals, such as growth, innovation, stability, or agility, should guide the choice of structure. A divisional structure supports diversification strategies well, while organizations primarily aiming for operational efficiency might find a functional structure more appropriate.

◦ Scalability: Assess the structure’s ability to support future growth or strategic changes. With its reputation for flexibility, a flat archy (a hybrid of a hierarchy and a flat organization with little to no levels of management) may better accommodate rapid scaling than a traditional hierarchical structure.

Nature of Operations

◦ Complexity of Operations: A divisional structure benefits organizations with complex operations across various products, markets, or geographical locations by allowing specialization. Conversely, a functional structure suits businesses focusing on operational excellence in fewer areas.

◦ Interdependencies: The choice should consider the degree of interdependence between functions or divisions. A matrix structure, blending functional and divisional lines, may assist in effectively managing circumstances with high interdependencies.

 Organizational Culture and Values

◦ Collaboration vs. Specialization: Organizations valuing cross-functional collaboration may prefer a matrix or flat archystructure to enhance interaction across expertise areas. Those prioritizing deep specialization might opt for a functional setup.

◦ Decision-making: The preferred speed and style of decision-making influence the structural choice. Flatarchies and matrix organizations encourage decentralized decision-making, possibly speeding up processes and empowering lower-level employees. Traditional hierarchical structures, however, might centralize decision-making, leading to more control but slower decisions.

 Industry Dynamics

◦ Competitive Environment: Structural choices promoting agility and rapid innovation, like flatarchies and matrix organizations, provide advantages in fast-moving industries. Traditional hierarchical structures, focusing on efficiency and cost leadership, better suit stable industries.

◦ Regulatory Considerations: The need for clear reporting lines or compliance functions may dictate organizational structure decisions in certain industries.

Talent and Leadership

◦ Leadership Style: The organization’s prevailing (or desired) leadership style influences the most suitable structure. For instance, a democratic or participative leadership style is more compatible with less hierarchical structures.

◦ Talent Management: Consider the impact of the structure on talent acquisition, development, and retention. Functional organizations, offering clear functional descriptions and career paths, may attract individuals seeking specialization, while flexible structures appeal to those desiring diverse experiences.

 Technology and Systems

◦ Supporting Infrastructure: The selected structure needs appropriate technology and systems to support communication,collaboration, and information sharing across the organization.

◦ Adaptability to Technological Changes: Technology-intensive industries may benefit from flatarchies or matrix structures that can adapt quickly to technological advancements.

 Conclusion

Choosing an organizational structure is a complex decision that senior leaders should make with a comprehensive understanding of the organization’s strategic objectives, operational needs, cultural norms, and external environment. This decision isn’t static; as the organization evolves, its structure must adapt to support its strategy and operational effectiveness.

The CEO Team

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

From my associate Grant Tate.

When I meet a CEO who is a visionary, a dreamer, or a strategist, I ask, “Where is the implementer, the person who can translate the CEO’s dreams into action?” If I meet a CEO who is a mechanic, focusing on the short term, with an office (or computer) full of charts and graphs, I ask, “Where is the strategist, the person who focuses on the long-term success of the organization?” Some CEOs can serve both roles at the top, but that’s less frequent. Regardless of style, the wise leader understands their strengths and finds colleagues who create balance in the front office. Often, that means choosing associates with drastically different styles and talents.

‍Of course, the phases of an organization’s life may require different kinds of leadership, but leading a complex organization at any time demands a variety of skills and mental capabilities. The wise leader builds an executive team whose members complement and trust each other. Diversity counts. A team with individuals with different resumes and differing behavioral styles can be both creative and practical if, of course, they know how to worktogether. (That’s a topic for another day.)

The top position, the CEO, is the integrator. It’s the place where all the elements of the organization come together for consideration and decisions. In a functional organization structure, the leaders of the various units are often specialists in their particular functions and become strong advocates for that function, sometimes lacking a broad perspective for general management. The CEO, then, is responsible for making tradeoffs among the different elements to ensure the best direction for the firm.

Adam Grant, the famous organization theorist, suggested that theCEO job is too big for one person and that the responsibilities should be shared among two or more top executives.[1]

‍That is something large companies could do. Still, it takes careful planning to ensure the co-executives have the appropriate mix of skills, can work well together, know how to resolve conflict, and can implement well-designed decision-making processes. One of my consulting colleagues uses music to teach executives this process. Making music together is a good analogy for this management approach.

Most smaller companies cannot afford dual CEOs. Yet, the CEO can still create a diverse leadership team.

‍Start by defining what unites the company and the team:

  1. A strong statement of the organization’s purpose.
  2. A set of principles that guides the way the team members treat each other.
  3. A set of principles that shows the way the company treats its constituents.
  4. A code of ethics for all the business practices.
  5. A well-articulated conflict management system.‍

Only people who pledge to support the unifying principles should join the team. Diversity should be built on that foundation.

Diversity means a variety of decision styles, personality types, skill sets, points of view, and experiences. Recruiting such a team requires more than interviews and resume’ reviews. Personal assessments, discussion of case studies, and other such exercises can provide important information about a person’s potential role on the team.‍

After joining the team, each team member should be committed not only to their differentiated role but also to their role on the team. The CEO should measure members’ contributions to the team, not just their individual functions. Similarly, the CEO needs to guide and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the TEAM functions. This should include debriefing sessions after important team activities, as well as self-evaluation and feedback for each team member.‍

Selecting and building the team is one of the essential responsibilities of the top executive.

 

[1]https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/the-science-of-leadership-with-adam-grant/

How to Choose Your Organizational Structure

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

In my experience, many executives have yet to examine how to best structure (or restructure) their organizations to execute their strategic plans. Often, their employees work longer and harder than if the formal organizational design was adapted to fit the new direction.

There are various structures that management teams can take depending on the size, complexity, and goals of an organization. Here are some examples to consider, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each.

  1. Functional Structure: The management team is organized by functions, such as finance, marketing, operations, and human resources. Each area has its head, and they report to the CEO. This structure is typical in smaller organizations.
    1. Upsides:
      • Efficient use of resources: By grouping similar functions together, this structure can help maximize the efficiency of the organization’s resources and expertise.
      • Clear lines of authority: Each function has its head, creating clear lines of authority and reducing confusion about who is responsible for what.

      2. Downsides:

      • Limited communication and coordination between functions: Because each function naturally focuses on its area of expertise, there may be limited communication and coordination between different processes, leading to silos and reduced cross-functional collaboration.
      • Slower decision-making: Since decisions must go through several layers of hierarchy, decision-making can be slow and bureaucratic.

 

2. Divisional Structure: Management is organized by divisions, such as geographical regions or product lines. Each division has its leader, and they report to the CEO. This structure is often the norm in larger organizations with multiple products or locations.

Upsides:

  • Faster decision-making: Each division has its head, encouraging faster decision-making than in a functional structure.
  • Focus on specific products or regions: By grouping employees by division, this structure can help organizations focus on specific products or regions and adapt to local needs.

Downsides:

      • Duplication of resources: Each division needs its own resources, which can lead to duplication of effort and increased costs.
      • Limited communication and coordination across divisions: Similar to the functional structure, limited communication and coordination across different divisions can lead to silos and reduced cross-functional collaboration.

 

3. Matrix Structure: In this case, the management team is organized by functions and divisions attempting to mine the benefits of both structures. In this scenario, employees have two bosses – one from their function and one from their division.

Upsides:

  • Greater flexibility: By combining functional and divisional structures, the matrix structure can offer greater flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances.
  • Improved collaboration: By creating cross-functional teams, the matrix structure can improve cooperation and communication between different functions and divisions to serve internal and external customers better.

Downsides:

      • Complex and difficult to manage: The matrix structure can be complex and challenging, especially for employees who must report to multiple bosses.
      • Potential for internal conflict: Since employees report to multiple bosses, there is a potential for conflicting priorities and power struggles, leading to excessive workload demands on the staff. It can create stress within the staff as they decide whom they will and will not satisfy.

 

4. Flat Structure: The management team has very few hierarchical levels in this structure. There is no middle management, and employees have significant autonomy. This structure is commonplace within smaller organizations or startups.

Upsides:

  • Faster decision-making: With fewer hierarchical levels, decision-making can be faster and more efficient.
  • Greater autonomy: Employees in a flat structure can be more independent and empowered to make decisions and take action.

Downsides:

      • Limited opportunities for advancement: With fewer hierarchical levels, employees may have limited opportunities to advance their careers.
      • Lack of specialization: Since employees have to take on a wide range of responsibilities, there may be a lack of needed expertise in certain areas.

 

5. Hierarchical Structure: This structure contains many hierarchical levels. Employees report to their immediate supervisor, who reports to their supervisor, and so on. Often, this is the structure of choice within larger organizations.

Upsides:

  • Clear lines of authority: With many hierarchical levels, there are clear lines of control, and employees know to whom they report.
  • Opportunities for advancement: With many hierarchical levels, employees often have opportunities to advance their careers.

Downsides:

      • Slower decision-making: With many layers of hierarchy, decision-making can be slow and bureaucratic.
      • Potential for communication breakdowns: With so many layers of hierarchy, communication can break down or become distorted as it moves up and down the chain of command.

 

6. Network Structure: This management team is built around a network of independent contractors, suppliers, and partners. The management team coordinates and manages the network. This structure is typical within industries where companies collaborate to produce a product or service.

Upsides:

  • Flexibility and scalability: The network structure can be highly flexible and scalable, allowing organizations to adapt to changing circumstances or expand their reach.
  • Access to specialized expertise: By working with a network of independent contractors and partners, organizations can access needed expertise that they may not have in-house.

Downsides:

    • Difficult to manage: Managing a network of independent contractors and partners can be challenging and time-consuming.
    • Lack of control: Since the independent contractors and partners in the network are not employees, the organization may have limited control over their actions and outcomes.

 

These are just a few examples of the many management team structures that organizations can adopt. The most suitable design for your organization depends on its strategy, size, complexity, and goals.

The New Wave of Organizations

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

From my associate Grant Tate. More on the importance of understanding organizational structures.

Last week I watched the latest version of the World War I classic, “All Quiet on the Western Front,” a somber and depressive story. As you remember, each side lived in deep trenches facing each other across a vast wasteland. Once in a while, one of the forces would attack the other across the landscape, but the battle lines changed less than a few hundred yards over the primary years of the war.

Many business organizations seem like that, stuck in the old hierarchical paradigm—machine bureaucracies. Even small businesses, mainly if run by older men, seem to fall into the same rut as they grow. That rut may be OK if a company operates in a stable market. But how many markets are like that?

An organization’s structure and management system must be tuned to market dynamics. If the market is flat or growing slowly, pick your structure and stick to it. On the other hand, if the market is changing rapidly, the company needs flexibility and agility.

Visionary leaders and organization theorists have employed new organizational styles in fast-growing and entrepreneurial companies. Agile organization structures are the new wave.

Agile organizations have strong strategic awareness, the ability to sense the market changes and make appropriate adjustments to company direction and execution, a flexible leadership team that can lead the changes necessary to adapt to the market, and rescue flexibility—the ability to move human and financial resources to the new opportunities. From a structural viewpoint, such organizations are often a “team of teams—a more organic rather than mechanistic arrangement. But, of course, that means all team members must know how to perform in the team environment. And leaders must be highly skilled in team leadership.

McKinsey, in their article “The Five Trademarks of Agile Organizations,” identified these characteristics:

  1. A North Star embodied across the organization—a solid common purpose or driving force.
  2. A network of empowered teams. Empowered is the keyword here. Each unit has a clear objective and targeted results
  3. Rapid decision and learning cycles—a learning organization
  4. A dynamic people model that ignites passion. An agile organization puts people at its center.
  5. Next-generation enabling technology. Efficient and effective communication and coordination technologies are essential in such organizations. Jira and other such applications become essential to the implementation of these concepts.

 

Many leaders look at this model with skepticism. “Wait a minute,” they say. Parts of my company can’t work that way. Those parts need stability and effective processes.”

That reaction suggests a hybrid model, where customer-facing units, design teams, and innovative units employ the agile model, where support functions such as finance use the stable structure. Of course, knowing how to distinguish the dividing line is vital to the organization’s design.

The pandemic accelerated our thinking about new organizational schemes, Remote and hybrid arrangements have forced us to think differently about the allocation of work. In addition, new generations of people bring new ideas and new expectations.

We must get outside our old trenches of organizational thought and find new ways to help people work together joyfully and with accomplishment.

The Purpose of Management Team Structure

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

In our latest issue of the Paradigm Associates Journal, we take a deep dive into organizational structure. This perspective is from my associate Janice Giannini.

We are all aware that there are many effective management team structures. The question is, “which one is best, given the mission and strategic goals of the business?”

To effectively address this question, one needs to reflect on the purpose of the team structure, the capabilities of the team members, and their effective integration.

When grappling with this choice, aligning a few fundamentals could go a long way to determine the most effective structure to implement.

  1. What is the purpose of the management team structure? To make it easier and more transparent for the executive leadership to do their job successfully.
  2. What is the executive leadership’s job? To develop a strategy and execute that strategy to meet or exceed the growth plan.
  3. What structure is best? The team structure may vary for different parts of the organization.

 

The critical question is, what do you want or need? Do you want a management team, or do you need a leadership team? These are not necessarily the same thing. What is the difference? Leadership teams possess over-arching capabilities, up/down and across the organization, to keep the entire organization focused on the end goals. Management-only teams may focus more on domain expertise and may or may not possess and utilize these strategic talents.

Several of the most significant abilities are:

  • Establish the Culture and Values of the Company: Make it clear and understandable so all Executive leaders own it and can easily explain it and live it. People see the difference. A disconnect here flows through the entire organization with sub-optimal effects.
  • Effective Communication at All Levels: Especially in a fast-paced world, for people to make appropriate decisions, they need open non-ambiguous communications. How can anyone execute it if you can’t communicate effectively?
  • Hire and Develop Courage at All Levels: Courage is easy when everyone agrees. However, courage can be formidable when conditions could go seriously awry. Leaders must develop this in themselves and others.
  • Collaboration and Respect: Businesses today are very complex. No one knows everything. While many may feel a few areas are more critical than others, to run a thriving company, everyone in every discipline must constantly play their A game. Collaboration and respect for others offer a pathway to get there.

 

If the management teams display these strategic skills effectively, navigating the team structures to achieve company growth is more accessible. But conversely, team members need to confidently exhibit these skills so that even the best team structure is likely to meet or exceed the growth plan consistently.

The appropriate “management/leadership teams structure “needs to flow directly from the company values as stated, reflecting the fundamentals above as implemented. If the day-to-day implementation differs from the values as stated, that disconnect drives the structure and business.”

As you grapple with this, ask and observe: Are the Board, C-suite, and management team aligned? If everybody isn’t rowing in the same direction, are you willing to live with the impact?

If the answer to these questions is no- what do you need to do to strengthen the foundation before building on top of it?

Are You Structured for Chaos?

NYC Executive Coaching avatarPosted on by

If history has taught us anything, it has demonstrated that business can be disrupted, at any time, by any number of chaotic circumstances: supply chain failure, limited workforce pools, natural disasters, technology failures, economic slowdowns, or full-blown recessions. And now we can add pandemics to the list.

Traditionally, most companies create their formal organizational structures and charts for when things are stable. Whether the design is hierarchical, functional, divisional, or matrix, operations are expected to run smoothly – as long as things are functioning under normal business circumstances.

Are You Structured for Chaos?

Think about it. Just in the last decade, how often has your company needed to adapt its operations to deal with the external changes that created such chaos?

Rigid organizational structures ultimately harm a company’s ability to react to ever-present randomness. Businesses must first accept and then embrace the necessity for responsiveness to daily, weekly, or monthly chaos and its effect on operations and the wants and needs of employees and customers.

Why are too many organizations effectively designed for only a fraction of the time they operate? Instead, set up your organization to make faster decisions and to be able to execute them immediately. This statement doesn’t always require an overhaul of your company structure. A straightforward solution could be as simple as adding a floater position that takes on the current crisis – a well-versed, knowledgeable project manager without a portfolio. From my days at Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (P&G) in the 70s and 80s, we often used that idea to ensure we had the capacity we needed when we needed it.

By not adapting quickly enough, inert companies fail to tackle and handle ever-changing economic, technological, social, and market conditions. Agile organizations thrive. Instead of fighting change and offering resistance, why not adjust your organizational structure to adapt to the chaotic environment that you operate in almost every day?