To ensure their survival in a constantly changing world (BANI[1]), more and more businesses, organizations and companies are searching for structures and forms of organization that better distribute power and responsibility, to make them more autonomous and thus give them greater agility and responsiveness. They want to be able to cope with challenges more effectively. This explains all the talk of, for example, liberated enterprises, sociocracy and holacracy.
However, a number of critical points or difficulties are evident in past and current experiments. Various businesses, having put such systems in place, have contacted me asking for help and support in what they are doing.
Here are ten critical points I have noted
- Degree of maturity: These new approaches take time to implement and cannot be introduced at the drop of a hat. They need to be prepared for. There is a process to be gone through, and, in this process, there needs to be a guide, a motivator. Leadership, too, is essential. In actual fact, the maturity of a company depends on its vision, a clearly defined vision that is understood and shared. The company needs to have established values that are in accord with this vision. These values have to be translated into clearly observable principles of behaviour and management. The structures put in place, the processes and tools, must be appropriate and take all this into account. This ensures coherence and congruence. As a result, there is a clearly defined framework within which employees can experience greater autonomy. The maturity we are talking about needs to be matched by exemplary conduct on the part of managers and executives. They must practise what they preach, i.e. have integrity. This is the principal lever for introducing a new corporate culture.
- Personal autonomy: Wanting to share power and give more freedom in decision-making is a noble aim. However, not everyone has the willpower and resources required for taking decisions. Not everyone in an enterprise has the autonomy and grit required to bear the consequences of their decisions.
- Leadership: Have you noticed that the enterprises or organizations putting in place new forms of organization are all going through a positive phase? When in crisis, organizations are not prepared to take the risk. The fact is that, in a crisis, leadership is needed. It may be that we no longer need “bosses”, but we will always need leaders. Having said this, a leader will not necessarily be the CEO: depending on the circumstances, anyone can take on the role of leader.
- Cooperation: Even though in some companies “functions” are abolished and replaced by “roles”, individual people are still human beings, with all their emotions, fears, affinities, uniqueness, interpretations and expectations.
So, at a time when digitalization is all the rage, I say two things:
Firstly, no one really knows what “digitalization” means for their enterprise or institution, and this is true at all levels. I have experienced a number of workshops with the management teams of both large companies and SMEs, and no one really knew what it would mean for them.
Secondly, only companies which aim for cooperation within and between their different teams can expect to succeed. The strength created in this way, the cohesion, solidarity and confidence, will enable them to solve the problems that arise, when the time comes. Such cooperation and sense of belonging develops and strengthens both individual resilience and the resilience of the organization. - Taking responsibility: If a system is not coherent, and above all consistent, the reality is that, far from assuming greater responsibility, the employees concerned will tend to offload their responsibilities, claiming that such and such is not within their remit.
- Tensions: The idea of managing “tensions” in such approaches as a holacracy is excellent in principle but, unfortunately, sometimes pursued to extremes. In this case, everything becomes a “tension” and those involved do not even try to sort things out for themselves by dealing with problems at an early stage or downplaying them. This fixation on tensions poisons meetings and is a complete waste of time.
- Support: The introduction of new approaches is often well supported by specialized external institutions, at least at first. The chief gap I have noted is in medium- and long-term support. Indeed, difficulties often arise after some considerable time, and this is when support is needed. Moreover, it is essential that there be a common language, a common understanding, and leadership principles that are clear, practised and shared. So, where support is concerned, a leadership programme is required.
- Simple language: As you well know, one key to success, in addition to having a common understanding and language, is to adopt a simple approach expressed in simple terms. This is perhaps my most serious criticism of these new forms of organization, and especially of holacracy and its famous constitution: dozens of pages full of new jargon leading only to complication and complexity. Let’s keep it simple.
- Internal coherence: If we take the example of holacracy with its defined roles and their purposes, I find that these are often standard formulations, sometimes copy-and-paste examples, or even formulae derived from external sources.
To ensure internal coherence, it is essential that each team, circle, role or entity within the enterprise or organization formulate its own purpose, based on its mission and the corporate vision. The question to ask is: “What is my/our contribution?” Depending on the answer, you can formulate your piece of the puzzle. - Being consistent: Last and maybe most important of all, businesses need to be more consistent. This is probably where the greatest problem lies. It’s better not to do too much, put too many things in place, but rather be consistent in what you have introduced and therefore very disciplined. This will result in a high impact with a modest outlay, gains in speed and efficiency and, above all, confidence and a positive dynamic within the organization.
Therefore, to overcome these difficulties, what is required is a leadership approach, taking certain elements of the new forms of organization and putting them into effect in a carefully thought-out and simple way. In my case, I have drawn inspiration from nature, combining these elements with an animal that has greatly impressed me in recent years. This fascinating animal is the octopus.
Octopus
As a marine creature, the octopus has characteristics and modes of behaviour that are strangely similar to the concept of agility and the skills needed to transform an enterprise into a constantly changing organism. Here are a few of the similarities:
- Adaptability: octopuses are known for their ability to adapt to different marine environments.
- Flexibility: octopuses have supple, flexible arms that enable them to move about and adjust their posture with great agility.
- Continuous learning: octopuses are intelligent, curious creatures, constantly learning from their environment.
- Problem-solving: octopuses are able to solve complex problems by using their intelligence and agility.
- Camouflage and agility: octopuses can change their colour and skin texture very rapidly, thus blending into their environment and evading predators.
- Cooperation and communication: octopuses use their tentacles to interact with their environment and communicate with one another.
- Risk management and leadership: octopuses are able to withdraw rapidly into their hidey-holes for protection or, if they need to make a run for it, they go head first followed by their tentacles.
- Resilience: octopuses are able to regrow a tentacle that has been cut off.
To sum up, the analogy with the octopus highlights the importance of adaptability, flexibility, continuous learning, problem-solving and cooperation in a world that is constantly changing. Businesses which cultivate these skills and behaviours will be better able to flourish and prosper in a constantly changing environment.
Focus on neurones
Moreover, if we consider neurones, we find that they are distributed in similar fashion all over the body of the octopus. Each arm is autonomous. Here we have the distribution of power, the holy grail of the new forms of organization. As it has no skeleton (rigid structure), the octopus is, as already mentioned, very agile and flexible.
Another aspect of neurones is the way they use energy. They are in fact very economical and smart: they use only the energy they need, with no wastage. So if they need to make a new connection, they do it by eliminating the neurones they no longer need. Within our organizations, institutions and businesses, we need to learn to be just as smart, not to juggle a multitude of different projects and initiatives in parallel, and to save energy – our energy.
[1] The acronym BANI (B for brittle, A for anxious, N of non-linear and I for incomprehensible) can be seen as a further progression of the acronym VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity), pointing up significant factors brought about by a rapidly changing world.
