External Structure

In my last post I introduced a lot on the topic of structure. Most of what I mentioned though was focused on individuals learning how to create their own structure in their workday. There is also much to be said around how an organization is structured, and how that enables employees to be effective. Similar to my prior mentions of decision fatigue and the tyranny of choice, the same happens at the organization level as this quote from the book “Reframing Organizations” mentions:  “If structure is too loose, people go their own way or get lost, with little sense of what others are doing. Structures that are too tight stifle flexibility and cause people to spend much of their time trying to beat the system.”[1]

Organizations are challenged with creating structures which support individuals to find and tap into their own potential, while remaining open and flexible enough so as to not stifle the creativity and innovation they seek to foster.

Professor Teresa M. Amabile writes about how the social environment affects creativity in this Harvard Business article titled “Creativity and Innovation in Organizations”, in which creativity and innovation are outlined as:
“Creativity is the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain.
Innovation is the successful implementation of creative ideas within an organization.”
The article then goes on to show how the work environment impacts individual/team creativity, highlighting the need to properly set and measure goals, and to call out how intrinsic motivation is more likely to cultivate creativity and innovation. 

The point is that organizations need to find balance when creating structures and measurements for productivity, and that (similar to an individual’s quest) clear communication, goals and measurements are paramount to keeping on task and in focus. Conversely, a structure which is too rigid, and does not allow for the individual’s own variances, will squelch the intrinsic motivation necessary for individual and therefore organizational success. 

To further this point, I will reference this section from the book “Flow”:
“Two terms describing states of social pathology apply also to conditions that make flow difficult to experience: anomie and alienation. Anomie— literally, “lack of rules”— is the name the French sociologist Emile Durkheim gave to a condition in society in which the norms of behavior had become muddled. When it is no longer clear what is permitted and what is not, when it is uncertain what public opinion values, behavior becomes erratic and meaningless. […]

Alienation is in many ways the opposite: it is a condition in which people are constrained by the social system to act in ways that go against their goals.”[2]
For clarity, "Flow" is a mental state in which a person is fully immersed, feels an energized focus, is fully involved, and enjoys the activity which they are performing. 

Creating the balance of structure necessary to harness creativity and innovation, and to cultivate Flow is a process every organization needs to go through.

Productivity Inc. is a consulting firm that focuses on, in part on creating this type of "Strategic Innovation". Their website states that true innovation “thrives in organizational cultures that create space for new ideas and foster collaboration among employees and enterprise networks. And, most important, it requires the leadership behavior, infrastructure, and processes to execute effectively on key insights.”

There are tools and methodologies, even consulting firms out there to help organizations create the correct mix of structure where innovation is found, but not hampered.

[1]Lee G. Bolman;Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (Jossey Bass Business and Management Series) (p. 75). Kindle Edition.


[2] Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (2008-08-18). Flow. (Kindle Locations 1874-1875). Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Your own worst boss

Working remote takes some getting used to. Managing your own time is not a skill that is fostered in traditional work environments where employees are expected to fulfill certain hours of the day instead of producing a defined amount of measurable work (more in this post ). When switching to a remote environment, people need to learn how to manage their time and any conflicting diversions. Learning to prioritize is the first step. Knowing your goals, and tracking your own ability to produce will help to hone in on how and when to work.  It is actually more common for employees new to a remote environment to overwork. It is difficult to set clear boundaries. There is often a general assumption that if work is not seen it is not done. However, there is actually nothing more effective than personal accountability.  No manager will ever be able to manage an employees time or hold them accountable as well as any one person may do for themselves. From the book "The intellig...
Read more

Why Remote

Office buildings are expensive, very, very expensive. The average annual per seat cost in the U.S. is around $15,000 (this varies per study/industry, but not by much). Now multiply that by the number of employees in your company, and you get my point.   On top of the financial implications the environmental impacts are huge.   Depending on the physical footprint of an office building, the carbon footprint of operating it increases the expense many times over. Unfortunately, those expenses are not always accounted for. Throw in the cost of commuting, and maintaining homes that remain empty all day, and the expenses just keep building up. Why? Because this is “how it’s done”? Well, the way work is done has shifted. Technology allows people to connect, communicate, engage, and work from anywhere. Even professions that seem absolutely tied to physical space, or are based on human interactions are able to become increasingly virtual. This is not a bad thing! Virtual doe...
Read more

How work is viewed

A large portion of being able to shift to a successful remote environment is centered around how work is defined within the organization. Many companies still operate in an outdated fashion- employees that are present in the office from 9-5 are productive. If managers are able to see employees, they assume that is enough. It’s not. Work should be focused on product, not presence. Every individual has an optimal time and preference of production. If all employees are asked to occupy the same time and space in order to produce, then the majority of productivity is lost. Productivity is no longer based on a Fordist concept of parts per hour, so there is a need to redefine what product looks like. Product should be defined per industry, organization and individual, not to be confused with physical presence. Collaboration is an important factor in any organization. With the virtual collaboration tools that are available however, physical presence is not as important as shifting an o...
Read more