We have mentioned several times before that a sustainable corporation must be flexible. One internal issue which is directly related to the flexibility is the organizational structure.
There is an imperative necessity worldwide to shift to more horizontal, network-like structures for several reasons. These kind of structures promote the idea exchange between all the levels of the organization entailing the following inevitable advantages: coherency between strategic, tactical and operative goals and decisions; attraction and retention of young talents reducing the emigration rates in developing countries; transparency in the activities since everyone is connected to every other; increase in productivity due to “Pygmalion effect” because the whole organization is depending on your work and not only your team or your boss; and the list can go on and on. Furthermore, in the past years, lots of people have learned about the benefits of network communication in social networking sites (facebook, myspace, twitter, etc), why can´t we use the benefits of these platforms to enhance corporation collaboration? In fact, there are very big developers (Google and Microsoft being the biggest) trying to build this kind of platform. If anyone is interested, I am also engaged in the business development of a platform of similar nature (called ATOM).
I found a nice analogy (first proposed by John Clarkeson in 1990) to illustrate this shift. A vertical structure is like an orchestra where the director tells everyone what to play and when to do it. Whereas an horizontal structure is more like a jazz band where integration, communication and improvisation are fundamental pieces in order to achieve success. We need more jazz players in a world in which the job of the orchestra directors is getting more difficult each day with intricate musical scores, changing beats and six-lined pentagrams.
Just to close this post (the same topic will be continued next time) I must clarify that the directive sphere of an organization must still exist but its activity must only be constrained to take decisions that the whole network can’t take in an autonomous way due to its wide and integrative nature. For example, entering new markets or firing people (the list can be really extensive).
Or hiring people as well, for example.
ReplyDeleteAll the strategies you mentioned are attractive; however, in my opinion, unrealistic! Maybe in developed countries, where in the last decades enviormental issues have recieve special attention, you can think of companies worring about "sustainability"; but "sustainability" implies a "worldwide commitment", and I don't think that companies in undeveloped countries will be interested in create strategies focus on sustainability instead of strategies focused on "higher profits"; so, how can you integrate this solution in a worldwide range??? how can you make the "southern hemisphere" aware of this issue???
ReplyDeleteWell, there are different ways of being sustainable, not only related with environmental issues (see previous post on "What is a Sustainable Company?"), but I think that the application of social networks tools for working collaboration will increase productivity bringing higher profits anywhere in the world.
ReplyDelete