Companies, why the organisational chart is only an organisational anxiolytic

This article, like the entire "Rethinking the enterprise", does not refer to any particular company. Nor could it: the organisational model I am talking about is adopted, in almost identical forms, by most companies. This is neither a polemic nor a recipe, but a desire to explore roads less travelled.

In every company, the organisation chart defines boundaries, reporting lines, responsibilities. But more than an operational tool, we can now consider it an organisational anxiolytic: because it simplifies complexity, calms the anxiety of disorder and makes us believe that everything has a precise place. This entire article stems from a long conversation with Francesco Frugiuele, founder of Kopernicana, with whom I have long shared an interest in post-hierarchical, or, if you like, post-Fordist organisational models. One key realisation emerged from this chat: it is not the organisational chart itself that creates problems, but the fact that we ask it to answer questions that it cannot address. Specifically: who really decides what, and on what basis are decisions made?

When a serious problem emerges, the first reaction is to follow the organisation chart with the index finger and call the relevant manager. But rarely does the person who appears in bold on that box really have the information, the autonomy or the ability to intervene. He often has to 'feel the team', which depends on other teams, which answer to other structures. The result is a chain of referrals, calls, escalations and waits that produces more ambiguities than solutions. In my working life, I have seen interminable calls, with about twenty people from different directorates and levels, summoned to deal with minimal problems that a single person - if hired appropriately - could have handled in a very short time, and in complete autonomy. Wouldn't you?

The classic objection is: what if one doesn't care? If he only comes to the company for the salary, what happens if there is no manager to supervise him? Actually, in a well-designed network, that behaviour does not go unnoticed: colleagues notice it before the boss. Unlike in a hierarchical system, they can act, even if only by stopping assigning work or responsibilities. Frugiuele told me about the system of Morning Star, an American company known for its self-organised structure, in which each colleague can report, in a transparent manner, when another does not contribute to the common good. A confrontation between equals, not imposed from above. Of course, a mature organisational culture is needed, it does not happen overnight, but it is the only way to prevent the 'simplifying function' of the hierarchy from becoming an anaesthetic to critical thinking. One does not always need a boss who controls, but a system that does not allow hiding. None of this means that companies should become hippie communes or hacker tribes, but using hierarchy just because it is simple no longer holds water. Especially in an age when complexity is no longer the exception, but the rule.

The point is, Frugiuele reminds us, that there must be accountability and it must be clear, visible, unambiguous. We need to know who has accountability on a certain issue, who decides what, who oversees a function or a risk. But this does not necessarily imply that it has to be a 'boss'. Often, when we say 'I want to know who to talk to', we are looking for someone who actually takes care of the problem. If we translate that need into 'who is in charge here', we risk reactivating defences, blame-shifting and the usual hunt for the culprit. We can, perhaps must, distinguish between responsibility for an issue and managing people. It is one thing to be in charge of an area, it is quite another to concentrate everything within a vertical system that slows down, confuses and removes responsibility. In short, we need an index of responsibilities, not a chain of command. Asking the hierarchical organisation chart to perform this function is like using a compass to read a cadastral map. And beware also of control anxiety that generates overdesign: the tool most often used to clarify roles and responsibilities - the famous RACI matrix - in many companies becomes a NASA dashboard to ride a bicycle.