Change is a constant in business today. While chatting with a colleague, he said, “Modern management realizes as soon as the ink is dry on the org chart, it’s time to change it.” I quickly retorted, “a thoughtfully considered, properly designed org chart would not need to be completely restructured constantly.” I continue by describing the concept of “schizoid incoherence,” which is the point an organization reaches when they are halfway between the current organizational structure (Org-A) and the new organizational structure (Org-B).
Schizoid incoherence, as its name implies, is a time of confusion. The organization is moving from one structure to another, and the members of the organization are not sure which organizational structure to use to get things done. Imagine if the organizational structure changes again before the movement from Org-A to Org-B is complete. If the organization introduces Org-C, members become further confused. If an organization continuously changes its structure, the organizational member will have little hope of realizing the efficiencies behind the proposed designs. A-ha – my point is made – proper consideration of the goal will yield a better, more sustaining organization chart.
A second and more serious issue surrounding schizoid incoherence is the swirling conjecture. In organizations where constant org chart changes are the norm, the rumor mill is extremely active and members are constantly wondering who they will report to next. This conjecture and swirl occupy a great deal of time. The result can be a drain on productivity.
What is the answer? Define the type of organization you want; I refer to this as business architecture. Your organization chart should structure the resources within your organization to get the work done efficiently. Some companies need geographic presence, while others do not. Some have many levels of hierarchy, and others will be flatter. Some are adhocracies to tackle specific issues, and some are hyper-stable structures to repeatedly do a very distinct transaction. Some organizations have high customer touchpoints, and others have fewer contacts with their customers. Some organizations are service-oriented (highly people-intensive), while others are product-oriented (highly physical resource intensive). In all cases, the facilitation of communication, cross-functional touchpoints, and customer interactions must be considered and satisfied.
Finally, I agree that change is an undisputable fact of business. The organization must be able to change to meet the customer and market demands for its products, services, and resources. This change does not necessarily mean you need to change the org chart; if you do, you need to thoughtfully make changes in the org chart to minimize disruption and schizoid incoherence. Most importantly, if you make the changes, communicate them explicitly with a specific date and insure the members attempting to use the legacy structure are pointed to the new design.
Until next time.
Dr. Dave