Being agile means appealing to the entrepreneurial spirit of employees and creating the right culture. Step by step, the structure of the company has taken over the people, reducing the efficiency of the company. Should we remove the structure to be efficient, as some models suggest?
The annual cost of absenteeism for the Swiss economy is estimated at 4.2 billion francs according to a study by the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs. According to statistics from the Swiss Federal Statistical Office in 2019, 77% of absences are due to illness and accidents and vary by function. For positions with responsibility the absenteeism rate is 1.9 to 2.5% and 4 to 6% for the other functions. For a company with 50 employees, the annual cost of absenteeism is estimated at 150’000 CHF. In addition to these absences, presenteeism, mainly associated with demotivation, can have an even greater impact on productivity and costs than absenteeism.
How do we get employees to be fully engaged, to work together and to realize their full potential?
As a company develops, its culture evolves. In the embryonic stage, the people working in the company have a common goal: to develop a product or a service that satisfies customers. All the energy is pooled to achieve this goal. Everyone’s skills are used to the maximum. The responsibility is common.
As the company grows, a structure is put in place to have visibility on who does what. The administrative part develops. Responsibilities are divided between the different departments. As the company grows, the structure becomes more important. Systems are put in place to help manage it. The structure that was initially created to promote transparency of roles, begins to imprison the members of the company within it, generating barriers between people (departments) creating the famous silos. Mutual support and sharing of skills becomes extremely difficult and laborious. The structure has taken over the human aspect. The company loses efficiency.
So, to improve collaboration between departments, the structure is adjusted, some departments are regrouped, others moved. Improvements are certainly achieved locally, but has the system as a whole really been improved, or has what has been improved in one place been lost elsewhere?
Should the structure be removed to be effective, as some models suggest?
I don’t think it’s a necessity. The structure itself is not bad.It’s just that it’s taken over the human, the way we interact in the company. To support the structure, we have put systems in place that encourage silos. For example, departmental objectives, job descriptions instead of roles, certain employee evaluations and employee rewards, … But the value of the company is in the interactions between the departments, not in the sum of the departments.
In order to improve collaboration and employee engagement, it is better to act on the systems in place than on the structure alone. Simplifying the structure will help transparency. Defining and managing your corporate culture, identifying the systems in place, deconstructing those that do not support the desired culture and replacing them with adequate systems will allow you to use the full potential of your employees and create winning teams.
Companies that are able to build winning teams with their employees will be well positioned to meet the challenges ahead.