Can You Make the Complex Simple? Part III

Silos: Where the Aura of Simplicity Masks a Lie

Every one of us who is an organizational animal knows about organizational silos.

Wikipedia has a useful explanation for those wanting to re-visit the concept:

The expression is typically applied to management systems where the focus is inward and information communication is vertical. Critics of silos contend that managers serve as information gatekeepers, making timely coordination and communication among departments difficult to achieve, and seamless interoperability with external parties impractical.

Therefore, the more desirable approach must be to reach out and stay connected across the organization.

So why is "breaking down silos" still a hot topic after:

1. Years of familiarity with the problem and its negative effects

2. Buying books, reading articles, and attending seminars on the evils of silos and what to do differently

3. Understanding what to do differently but not doing it

I'll tell you why.

Silos Exposed! (Right Here on All Things Workplace)

Silos look simple. And they are easy to manage.

You group similar tasks into nice functional groups, slap a label on each, and keep people together who do the same kind of work and have similar professional backgrounds and interests.

On the surface it makes sense.

Underneath the surface it can get ugly.

Why?

1. When like-minded people huddle together, separated from others, we start to become "right" about things. Then we become "righteous." And then, "self-righteous."

2. Separation vs. Connection produces "us" vs. "them." Forget that "them" folks are working for the same organization.

3. Companies are all about information. So is power.

Here's how it goes:

If I give you my information I give you some of my power. If I tell you what I'm thinking about Project X then I lose my element of surprise at the next meeting. Who knows, maybe you (you IT/HR/Sales weasel!) will incorporate part of my thinking into yours. You're ahead of me on the meeting agenda. People will think that you are brilliant. And then you will be prepared to ask me difficult questions when I stand up. I'll look like a jerk. You'll look even more brilliant.

See, I knew I couldn't trust you people from IT/HR/Sales.

It's sooo much simpler if I don't talk with you to begin with. Besides, I had my people talk with more of my people and we know I'm right.

Does any of this ring true in your organization? Please check in with your personal take or even a real-life example. (Unless, of course, you don't want me to have the information-power-and potential weasel status).

For a really good look at office politics and power, read this at Slow Leadership.

Tomorrow, Part IV: Making the Simple Complex

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the left. You'll always get the newest post!

Comments

[Shane]

There has to be a separation between certain units. For example, between production and quality control. One is go, go, go and the other is whoa, whoa, whoa. And they both have a valid agenda. One is never absolute over the other.

Bringing all the units or departments together is relatively easy if you hold a lot of impromptu meetings with managers and task them with putting together a block of information that's all about them.

And then I just gather everybody up and we go over everything together. I've found this to work because there's no preconceived notion of competition.

Impromptu or 'as needed' assemblies work. It's the regularly scheduled 'Monday morning meeting' that really erodes the team. That's where people start testing each other and working against each other instinctively.

[Mark Howell]

This is a good series Steve. I'm working my way through The Power of Alignment right now. Has lots to say about the subject of silos. Also, Lencioni's short read, Silos is very good. Very readable. Keep us thinking! This is good stuff.

mark

[Steve Roesler]

Well, Shane, as always you're on top of things with your common sense, in-touch approach to managing.

Do you want to finish Part IV?! :-)

The thing is always connectedness...and doing it in a way that people are welcome and at ease picking up the phone and talking with anyone at any time to clarify or move something ahead.

I especially like your distinction betweent the impromptu vs. scheduled, regular meetings. Getting people together when there's something timely to actually talk about proves worthwhile to everyone involved.

Thanks for the thorough comment...

[Steve Roesler]

Thanks for the encouragement, Mark.

Man, I've got to take a break from writing and get back on a reading schedule. Haven't had a look at either of those yet.

Hope the local vacationing is working out well...

[Shane]

Absolutely Steve ... people have to be able to communicate within an organization, and with everyone.

The managers that separate and break those communications lines are usually just afraid to answer the hard questions. But answering those hard questions is what makes good leaders into great leaders.

[Wally Bock]

Silos have staying power because they've worked for a very long time and most top management folks came up in a time when "organizational chart" structures were lauded for the efficiency and control they provided.

From the late Nineteenth Century, the "best" way to do things organizationally appeared to have three characteristics. You imagined the organization as a collection of discreet parts that could be designed to work together. You identified efficiencies by using rational analysis. You added efficiency by adding control.

Silo organizations were perfect. The engineers found heaven in the organizational model of the Roman Catholic Church. And you managed through a pyramidal structure that reduced the number of managers and increased their power as you moved toward the top. And it worked.

When the Whiz Kids went to work in WWII, they generated boatloads of savings and efficiency by applying rational analysis to military inventory. Change was slow to happen.

When Henry Ford II took over from his father, he inherited a company that estimated its accounts payable by weighing the invoices. He hired the Whiz Kids who set about applying rational methods to running Ford. And, oh yes, Ford adopted the GM silo-like model of company structure.

Silo organizations worked great in a world where there was no easy way to share information with everyone. Rational control worked great when that was the way to generate the greatest improvement.

That is no longer true. With the net, information can be available to anyone, almost anytime. Today agility and innovation may be more important than wringing the last few percentage points of efficiency out of a process.

But silos have worked for over a century. Silos and rational control typify the system that senior people used to build their careers. We may need a few well-placed retirements before we see any change on a grand scale.

[Jim Stroup]

Excellent post, Steve. Silos have long been a difficult challenge in business (and all organizations), since we trend toward them but the insular group-think they generate creates not only a lack of communication, but even mutual incomprehension within organizations - a remarkable but far from uncommon problem.