I was stimulated, by an article in the Journal of Organization Design, about how to do design work recognizing the need for agile evolution, the fact that designers do not always get it right and the fact that people don’t always behave as planned .
Good design does not always lead to a good organization because the designers are “boundedly rational”, and because people have their own wills which can cause them to act in unpredictable ways. Also, a good operating model for today may become less good tomorrow because the environment changes in ways that require new tasks or require tasks to be executed in new ways.
Agility, as I am using the word in this article, is the ability of organizations to adjust as circumstances change. But it is also the ability to adjust when part of the design that has been developed proves to be ineffective, either because the design is wrong or because people do not follow the design.
So why do people behave in ways that are not intended by the design.
First, they are influenced by the challenges they face, which may not have been anticipated by the designer.
Second, they have their own ideas about what tasks are most important, which may not always be the same as the intentions of the designer
Third, they choose behaviours that they believe are most effective for completing the task, which may not be the same as the behaviours that the designer thought were needed, and
Fourth, they choose behaviours they believe are most beneficial for them personally (personal rewards) and for their team or department and these can be in conflict with the behaviours that are most beneficial for the organization as a whole.
So what does “designing for agility” look like in practice?
We need to start with a definition of “good organization”. Good organization is an organization where “capable people work well together”. “Capable people” means people with the skills and personality suitable for the task combinations they are allocated. “Working well together” means that the people interact effectively where their tasks involve working with others in the organization.
Armed with this definition, “designing for agility” means:
- having a good understanding of which tasks need to be executed particularly well for the organization to succeed (which behaviours are critical to success) and how the people responsible for these tasks are currently behaving (if an organization already exists).
- focusing on achieving a fit between the person and the task, particularly for the most important tasks and most powerful people. This is about the “capable people” element of good organization. Fit occurs when the person already has the relevant skills, values, behaviours and understanding of priorities needed for the task. In these circumstances the slipage between intended behaviour and actual behaviour is likely to be low, at least where the intended behaviour is appropriate for the job. To go from mistfit to fit The designer will need to adjust the task or the person or both.
- focusing on designing solutions to “difficult links”: important interactions between people that are likely to be (or are known to be) suboptimal because of conflicting objectives or competence issues or personality issues or …. This is about the “working well together” element of good organization. Design solutions may involve adjustments to people, to task definition, to interaction protocols, to leadership structures, to incentives, to information systems, to locations or to ….
- designing strong performance accountabilities, so that areas of “misfit” or “difficulty” that impact performance are quickly exposed.
- “fast redesign”, whenever a “misfit” or “difficulty” emerges. A “misfit” or “difficulty” may emerge because the design was inappropriate, because the people are not behaving as the design intended or because circumstances have changed. Managers should be encouraged to think like the manager of a football club. If a person is injured – redesign. If a person is not executing their tasks well – coach or redesign. If we are losing the game – coach the team or redesign. If two people are not working well together – coach them or redesign. Every manager, therefore, needs the authority to redesign in their own area, as well as some competence at or support in good design.
- creating “design authorities” at different levels who can check whether the continuous process of small redesigns is challenging the overall working of the operating model or whether broader operating model changes are needed. The process should not be an approval process, which would slow down the redesigns. It should be a review or audit process, which raises red flags when a small redesign may have consequences that have been overlooked.
- designing a process that enables managers at all levels to signal the existence of and drive the resolution of “organizational tensions”: a “misfit” or “difficulty” that is not part of their authority, but is effecting their ability to execute their task. This process needs to be like the “tensions” process in holacracy or like the “Andon cord” on a Toyota production line.
- putting in place a culture and a reward system that reduces the natural forces of self-interest and department-interest which can distract from “organization-interest”. Managers also need to be supported with training that will help them evaluate the “organization-interest” when making small redesigns.
Since the enacted or realized or real organization is how people actually behave rather than how the operating model design expects them to behave, all design changes should focus on what actual behaviours are likely to result, given the actual people involved, the current cultural norms that will be difficult to change and the likely pressures on the organization that may affect behaviour. The enacted or realized organization emerges from the combination of the formal design plus the informal behaviours. Design work is mainly about designing the formal organization, but this should always be done with an eye on the likely impact the changes will have on actual behaviour.