In the context of our broader current discussion of what leadership actually does for an organization, this is a surprisingly interesting topic. It encompasses a wide range of subjects that some might not have suspected belong here, from change management to execution.
We will cover those specific sub-themes, however, separately. Today, we will address a general assertion made about the relationship between leadership and organizational design.
As we have noted here before, there is a widely held and enthusiastically promoted belief in the modern leadership movement that the very purpose of an organization is to give expression to the inspired musings of the leader at the top. This suggests that the organizational designer is more like a sort of tailor, producing a kind of bio-organic suit which the transcendent leader dons, thus extending his or her reach and power.
Naturally, it may sound obviously silly when expressed that way. But that is nevertheless very much what people of presumed probity and experience actually believe, teach, and endeavor to cause to happen.
So what, then, does organizational leadership understood this way do for, or to, an organization? Does it instill it with life and energy, or suck those out of it and make it a clumsy manikin, an inert and, ultimately, unwilling instrument of the individual leader? Can a leader really extend his or her reach through such an approach to organizational design, or merely dangerously limit that of the endeavor it is intended to pursue?
On the other hand, what if you are from the slowly emerging schools of thought that argue that effective organizations are literally infused with leaders - and, what’s more, creativity, innovation, the impulse to action, and the like - at all levels? Might you still view organizational design as intended to unleash the leadership within the enterprise, but which you now locate differently? Might that not result in the development of a strikingly different organizational structure and mindset?
We ought be able to infer from the clearly tangential bias of such considerations that organizational design should really be directed solely at facilitating not leadership of any kind at all - at least not primarily - but execution. The structure should support - even help cultivate - processes and dynamics that promote effective pursuit of organizational purpose. Leadership - whether you view it as emanating from atop or from throughout the organization - is obviously one of those dynamics, but not itself the end toward which organizational design is bent.
So, organizational design - however you view it in relation to either execution of organizational purpose or expression of organizational leadership - is a management tool for achieving those aims. As a result, whoever it is wielded by or at the behest of, it is itself inescapably a management function, and those who deploy it managers in the context of its use.
But we indicated that there are powerful sub-currents in this general field that leadership lays claim to in one form or another. We will look at one of those tomorrow.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of using organizational design to unleash group dynamics in ways that promote the objectives of the endeavor, please see this illuminating piece from Business Week which describes one area where it is typically not done well in the US, but is in India.
—
Please do take a moment to subscribe, either by email or RSS reader, to be sure you receive future articles as they’re published.
Similar Posts:
- Leadership and organizational purpose
- Leading leadership
- Showing leadership
- What is Organizational Leadership?
- Setting the stage for leadership
Technorati Tags: leadership, organization, change, management, execution, organizational design, leader, power, endeavor, creativity, innovation, enterprise, manager, Business Week, US, India
Sphere: Related Content
ON DECK
2 Comments
Fine post, Jim. The very term “Organizational Design” harks back to the engineering approach to management, Frederick Taylor, Scientific Management and the “one best way.” I wonder what the future of this is. If we create more organism-like organizations, will our structure be more evolving and less planned?
Hello Wally,
That’s true, isn’t it? Despite the theme of this post, I hadn’t looked at the checkered history of the term, viewing it only in a generic sense. But its use as a term to fig leaf what is, in effect, social engineering in a business context is an important insight to what I am trying to get at when discussing its use by those who view themselves as imposing their singular vision and ability on an organization.
“Organisim-like organizations.” I think the Brazilian firm, SEMCO, is possibly a harbinger of things to come in this regard. It is a caricature - not necessarily a model - of the future, but its successful adaptations in many other societies’ cultures - including in the US - may suggest something like what you note here. Certainly an interesting development to watch and assess.
Thanks for your visit, and as always for your thought-provoking observations.
Post a Comment