25. Why does the 'tilted' organization (sometimes) fail?

Tilt projects are a rage; and it’s about time! The classic functional organization has proven to be particularly good at keeping everything under control, but not at founding a dynamic organization for quality, innovation and flexibility. Process-oriented thinking and organization have therefore become a priority. Teams are put together in a multidisciplinary manner and have a bigger impact on the end result. They are made less dependent on support services, and if all goes well, the necessary re-engineering is done at the same time, to reduce the division of processes within the teams into functions. As the mission of an organization does not concern a strictly material and repetitive production, but is more focused towards innovation, service, or provision of care, the importance and usefulness of tilted structures increases.

Experience shows, however, that such a radical change in an organization rarely goes smoothly. There is even a total failure of the project, with damage to the organization . These are the main reasons:

1-       Poor methodology for change management

The tilt is often started from the enthusiasm of the management, who recognizes the potential or necessity of it. The management of the project is therefore very often in the hands of ' believers ', people who throw themselves very conceptually into these changes, sometimes even driven by a slightly theatrical management style. They try to 'sell' their idea to the staff, and very often have too little patience and respect for the objections experienced by the staff involved. Often, the methodology is missing to ensure both content for good decisions to ensure proper management of the teams involved and leadership is not getting the necessary focus. In fact, it comes down to a 'top-down' introduction of something that should actually function on the basis of more powers at the base. A sound process of participation is needed to ensure that such radical changes run smoothly.

2-       Too narrow a focus on the structure

For decades, we have known that the design of an organization not only consists of the structure, but also six other elements: strategy, systems, leadership, knowledge, people and culture. (see the work of Mc Kinsey that has been groundbreaking in this area) (1). It is a traditional stubborn one-sidedness in the practice of management to focus, when designing organizations, on the 'hard' side of the organization (strategy, structure and systems), and to neglect the soft side (leadership, knowledge, people and culture). This skewness is probably caused by the one-sided talent of many managers. But the consequences are clear: if the structure changes radically, and the other elements do not (especially the soft ones), as McKinsey predicted, the problem of disturbed internal balance is created. It is clear that a soft tilt is necessary to flank a hard tilt. Otherwise there will be a gap, confusion, conflicting signals, unclear identity, ... and therefore the recurring question: "what kind of organization do we want to be?"

3-       Timing

On top of these two problems there is a third; timing. Not only can one want to start too fast or want to go too fast (see point 1), but the sequence of the steps in the process also plays a role. If one first changes the structure, and then tackles the culture afterwards, things will go wrong. The culture determines what people find acceptable in the existing 'unwritten rules'. If that is not in line with what the structure requires, resistance will arise, and after a while the structure is expelled like a splinter in a finger. First the culture, then the structure! And one step further; first the leadership style, then the culture, then the structure.

Conclusion: system thinking must bring salvation. We must learn to see an organization as a living system with a pretty large complexity. It's not a building block reality where mechanical things need a different way of sorting. Someone who cannot feel the built-in laws of a system, cannot even grow decent vegetables. Perhaps managers who dive into organizational design first have to pass an exam in organic gardening ?

(1)     T. Peter, R. Waterman, In search of excellence, Harper & Row, New York, 1983

Hugo Der Kinderen (February 2018)