In larger companies, you come across them time and time again – hierarchical organisational charts. At the very top is the C-suite, then there are assistants to the left and right, followed by line management, and then one layer of the structure unfolds after another. These diagrams are often used as motivational tools for job interviews or career discussions. Nevertheless, these diagrams have their place if they are structured and used ‘correctly’. In the language of Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM), one often speaks of organisation, location and actors. Essentially, this refers to how the organisation, with its various sites, relates to its employees.
In my experience, such diagrams should answer far more important questions than simply hierarchical levels.
- Who is responsible for which issues, and who is their deputy?
- What are the escalation procedures if issues are not being addressed or are even being ignored?
- Who identifies the risks and has the decision-making authority and signatory powers?
- How is staff turnover management defined for each structure?
- What are the tasks and responsibilities of each role?
The answers to these questions address the actual, day-to-day needs of every employee. They can also lead to many other topics, such as business modules, their capabilities, and everything relating to data entities and current and future planning projects. This highlights how important it is to bring organisations to a level that is not based on outdated and rigid hierarchical structures. It should be clearly set out how each of the organisation’s key members – the employees – deals with their day-to-day challenges and risks.
Furthermore, this definition also has a positive impact on other key areas:
- Communication within and around the team
- Staff engagement and satisfaction
- Resilience and adaptability in the face of structural changes and team fluctuations
- Talent management and the development of each individual
The challenge
As is the case everywhere, there are a number of challenges here that need to be overcome. Unfortunately, the topic of EAM is very often politically charged, from medium-sized companies right through to large corporations. It requires a great deal of tact and sensitivity in dealing with people to drive forward a reorientation in this area.
In EAM terms, this takes us into the realm of business architecture, which is underpinned by all the key governance and compliance rules. As soon as you take the first step here, you inevitably come into contact with the regulatory frameworks. Works councils quickly take notice and keep a close eye on any changes to this structure. My advice here, therefore, is: cover your bases and check publications several times to avoid potential pitfalls.
The three main challenges:
- Resistance to change
- Upper to middle management
- Complexity and diversity
There are numerous other challenges – yet it is precisely the first two, namely resistance to change and the management behind it, that are the biggest sticking points. Change always meets with resistance. Staff feel criticised or have the impression that they are being scrutinised. The latter is particularly sensitive, as staff may feel they are being monitored. This can quickly lead to closed doors. Good leaders should not take criticism personally and should encourage change – both in themselves and within the team.
The opportunities
As an EAM expert, I tend to view every challenge as an opportunity. For me, the greatest and, at the same time, most important opportunity is ‘breaking down old structures’. The focus here is on utilising and optimising existing structures to increase the organisation’s efficiency and effectiveness. Through skilful adaptation and improvement, existing hierarchies and structures can be better aligned with the needs of the organisation and its staff.
We are all aware of how important – and at the same time challenging – good and balanced communication is. Enterprise Architecture and the ‘Organisation, Locations and Actors’ block offer many benefits and opportunities for companies to convey transparent structures to their staff without having to put them on the agenda every time at staff meetings or discussions and without having to disclose further, wall-sized diagrams. If everyone knows who is responsible for what, many processes could be streamlined and uncertainties avoided.
The prerequisites
‘Trust is more important than control’
Trust at C-level and across other management tiers, as well as their active support, is of crucial importance. Defining role descriptions and responsibilities often carries the potential for conflict. This requires both tact and the necessary commitment. Recommendations alone are not enough; it takes initiative to kick-start the optimisations and then see them through to completion.
The COBIT framework highlights a number of methods here that are worth their weight in gold, particularly when it comes to the approach.
‘Accept and incorporate feedback’
There is nothing worse than implementing improvements and then not being prepared to accept feedback. You must be aware that, as soon as you introduce changes, there is a risk that you may be viewed as the ‘bad boss’.
At such times, it is crucial to keep a cool head. Feedback should always be received positively and then immediately filtered, categorised and utilised. The best approach is to integrate the feedback in order to turn negative opinions into positive ones.
Summary
The focus is on breaking down traditional hierarchies in favour of more flexible organisational structures. Hierarchical organisational charts are examined critically, and their limited usefulness is questioned. The focus is on answering key questions that address the actual needs of employees. These questions centre on responsibilities, escalation procedures, risk definition, staff turnover management and role descriptions.
The integration of business architecture concepts and the ‘Organisation, Location, and Actors’ block emphasises the importance of transparent organisational structures for staff satisfaction and efficiency.
Challenges such as resistance to change, management issues and dealing with complexity should be viewed as opportunities for improvement. Trust and active leadership at all levels should be seen as prerequisites for successful organisational change.
The importance of transparent communication and the incorporation of feedback for the continuous optimisation of organisational structures should always be a clear priority.
