|
Throughout history, organizations have tended to work in a pyramid structure. This structure is easily identified by the existence of a ruling class or individual. Whether the leader is king or commander, CEO or president, manager or mayor, every pyramid has a decision-maker at the top.
As the pyramid unfolds, the next layer of individuals report directly to the leader, and pass along his/her desires to the people below them. As orders filter down, the groups get larger and larger, until finally the bottom of the pyramid is reached. The majority of individuals in a pyramid structure are at the bottom layer, performing the most menial tasks.
While a top-down format has certain advantages, the unfortunate truth of pyramid structure is that it is designed for the most people to have the least input. What is also unfortunate is that in most cases, the services and activities undertaken by the bottom layer are usually the main reason for the pyramid in the first place. While the leader may make the decisions that get passed down, it is the lowest layer that meets the customers, makes the products, and delivers the services.
An alternative structure for organizational management is the inverted (or upside-down) pyramid. This structure recognizes that the organization exists solely to provide for customers. If the payments by customers (through sales or taxes) are crucial for the survival of the organization, then the most important people in the organization are those that interact with customers. If customers are satisfied and served well, they will continue to feed the organization, ensuring its continuity.
While the top of an inverted pyramid consists of the many people who have direct influence on customers, the next level down contains the people required to support the front lines. Support staff may provide maintenance services, administrative services, or even management services. However, in the inverted pyramid, management does not exist to rule but rather to coordinate information and efforts of front-line individuals, providing them with the resources required to fulfill service obligations.
Since the front line is crucial to the organization, those in that position must have input, authority and decision-making responsibilities. While management services may provide guidance, it is really up to the front line to identify their needs. As long as the objectives are to improve service delivery and organizational strength, front-line requirements should always be met.
Switching from a regular pyramid to an inverted pyramid requires a system of Structured Empowerment. What this means is that front-line individuals are given authority and responsibilities, along with guidelines and structure that ensure all efforts are for the common good. Throughout the transitional process, front-line teams identify common requirements, and adjustments are made in operational process to most efficiently meet those requirements. The shift is not straightforward, and each activity and decision must be reassigned to the most effective level.
In the inverted pyramid, individual concerns and desires can get in the way of success. It is important for all participants to distinguish between their personal desires, and requests that truly improve the organization. When all are dedicated to the improvement of service delivery and efficient reallocation of authority, it can be successful. When groups or individuals insist on changes that are to the detriment of the entire organization, expectations must be adjusted. Ultimately, the inverted pyramid works when all of the people choose to make it work.
While the basic concepts of this power shift can be explained, the details are not as clear. The process takes place over time, and specific details fall into place. The key requirement for upper management is to suggest the change, encourage the change, and allow the change. Once an organization has been given the objective of restructuring, it will.
The concept of Structured Empowerment does not only apply to business. Any mass of people works together as an organization, and it is here that the greatest benefits can be realized. For example, in the city of Toronto, control of neighborhood development is centralized at City Hall. The introduction of Structured Empowerment would move authority and responsibility for neighborhood development standards directly to each neighborhood. Through the development of a master plan, each community or neighborhood would have direct input into alterations of their immediate environment.
While empowerment would give each neighborhood or community the ability to control its own destiny, the structure would ensure that all neighborhoods follow basic guidelines. There may be instances where the good of all is more important than the desires of one neighborhood, such as the introduction of transit throughways. However, each neighborhood would have direct input so as to minimize the disruption of their environment.
While the shift to Structured Empowerment may sound quite dramatic, it is actually already happening around the world. There are volumes of information about community planning on the Internet, and many towns and neighborhoods around the world control their own destiny. Many businesses have already migrated to a 'service first' outlook, and many employees are already involved in the ownership and management of their company. Ultimately, the system of Structured Empowerment requires the top levels to allow and coordinate the shift of power, and the front lines to honorably accept their responsibilities and duties. After that, everything just falls into place.
© Copyright 2006 Glenn Stewart Coles
|
|
