Column by Peter de Bruin

"Forward to Ourselves"

Many discussions about structure devolve into a tribal battle. It’s a waste of time, because organizational principles are, by definition, only temporarily important, argues Peter de Bruin in his most recent column.

In many organizations, there is a long-standing turf war over structure. Should the market, the product, or the profession take precedence? They’re all important and inextricably linked. Yet one dimension is just slightly more important than the others. And you can debate this among yourselves for a long time—too long, in fact. All that time is wasted time—energy that comes at the expense of customers, subject matter experts, and employees. When structuring an organization, there is an optimal order for these dimensions, and by definition, it is temporary.

Structure Follows Strategy

Organizing processes involving more than one person requires mutual agreements—structure. To structure the work, business processes and chains must be segmented. Sometimes, a “segment” represents a market where supply and demand converge. Other “breaks” are based on competencies or accountabilities, or simply because the whole is too large to manage. National borders, tax laws, target audiences, product categories, etc., can also be relevant organizational principles.

Breaking down business processes quickly leads to a matrix structure. Oops, the M-word! Many people consider the matrix to be a monstrosity. Multidimensional management creates ambiguity. And that’s true—it’s tricky, but there’s no getting around it. And that’s not limited to the matrix. Even more modern network structures require an organizing principle on which to base mutual agreements.

Back to the matrix: what is the guiding principle—region, business line, market, product, or staff? Every organizational structure is, by definition, suboptimal, but, as mentioned, it’s also inevitable. And temporary. The drawbacks of an overly prolonged market focus will inevitably necessitate a shift toward product or functional discipline at some point. And that is why an overly prolonged debate—or even a turf war—over structure is more harmful than the drawbacks of any single choice. The choice of structure is “merely” about the temporary sequence of the dimensions in which we can best organize the execution of our strategy.

Stop the fight

Decide on the order and cut! Compensate for the disadvantages of the structural cut in the steering by:

a. Ensure adequate integration at the top; after all, that is where everything comes together and where priorities must be set and progress monitored across all dimensions;

b. Create an open yet to-the-point consultation structure. If you cut, you have to paste. Symbiosis arises when there are competent connections at the intersections. This requires a special type of employee in that role;

c. Recognize that everything is temporary, and determine what exactly is temporary. Changing direction every four years is probably very healthy. During a brief transition, shift your weight to the other leg. We can walk on two legs.

Of course, we need to think carefully about the most logical structure, but avoid internal strife by trusting that it is only temporary. Everything is important, but not all at once. Respect the temporary order; one thing at a time.