The 'Functional Distortion' Caused by Management Close to the Frontline #234

At one time, I placed 'management close to the frontline' as the most important theme as a management issue.

The background to this was the organizational situation at the time.

When I became involved in the management of the existing business, the organization was doing its best just to maintain performance, and there was almost nothing that could be called a vision for the future.
Even when I asked for proposals for new businesses or strategies, no ideas of any real value were forthcoming.

At this rate, it would slowly decline.
When I intuited this, I thought that what was needed first was not strategy, but a 'reboot of the organization itself'.

Therefore, the first thing I started was building an 'open organization' where the frontline could get closer to management.

■ Why an 'open organization'?

The serious problem with the organization at the time was that it was passive, and opinions were not being voiced in the first place.
Discussions did not occur, and proposals from the frontline were almost never raised.
The 'thinking function' of the organization itself was in a weakened state.

Unless this state was changed, no strategy would work.
Thinking this, I decided to change the foundation of the organization first.

As a communication slogan, I also put up,
'Speak up. Listen (ask). Give shape to voices.'
.

What we should aim for is an organization that has the following three elements and where information flows actively and without stagnation, regardless of position or length of service.

• Psychological safety: A state where there is no anxiety about speaking out
• Flat communication: Relationships where one can dialogue across roles
• Transparency of information sharing: A structure where decision-making is not closed

■ Top-down management

However, in reality, consciousness did not change easily just by putting up a slogan.
While there was a state where opinions were hard to come by, there was a demand for the reconstruction of the organizational structure as soon as possible.

As a result, 'management close to the frontline' did not mean the frontline getting closer to management, but ironically, it meant management getting closer to the frontline in the form of top-down.

By increasing my own decision-making and instructions, and clarifying speed and direction, the stagnant organization began to move.
Performance also turned toward a recovery trend.

Furthermore, even in the sudden change of the external environment called the COVID-19 pandemic, this decision-making structure functioned, and the organization was able to overcome the situation.

In terms of the Tuckman model, which shows the process of team building, I think this state was close to a kind of 'skipping a grade in achieving results,' as if it had moved from the storming stage to the performing stage all at once.

However, at the same time, a certain structural problem became clear.

That was that 'it had become an organization that could not move without top-down'.

The management that should have functioned did not grow sufficiently, and decision-making gradually concentrated in the upper layers.
As a result, the autonomy of the middle layer weakened, and the organization tilted toward a dependency structure.

■ Side effects of top-down management

There is a structure called position in an organization.
Position is not power, but a difference in the scope of responsibility.

However, if you misunderstand 'openness = a state where you can speak freely' without understanding that as a premise, the organization easily loses its balance.

Openness was not freedom, but a state established on discipline and role division.

As COO, I went deep into the frontline to realize this ideal.
• Frequently patrolling the factory and having direct dialogues
• Conducting philosophy study sessions for all employees in groups of 10
• Conducting 1-on-1s with over 100 people a year
• Participating in drinking parties as much as possible

This is because I thought that picking up the voices of the frontline directly and reflecting them in management was the most correct thing to do.

However, that was also a lack of courage on my part to delegate.
As a result, it worked in a direction that weakened the function of management.
Because the frontline and management were connected too directly, it blurred the role of the middle layer.

■ Current management issue is 'strengthening organizational power'

After this experience, the current management issue has changed from 'openness' to 'strengthening organizational power'.

The first thing I am working on is the redesign of management.

I introduced a qualification system for management positions and made it a mechanism to appoint only those who meet certain criteria.
This is to guarantee the quality of management as a structure, not as individual experience.

Also, currently, I am minimizing direct involvement in the frontline and proceeding with delegation of authority.
I am emphasizing 'entrusting' rather than 'getting involved,' and aiming for a state where the organization moves autonomously.

I am not denying the 'open organization' I once aimed for even now.
However, it was not something that could be established on its own, but something that only functions when set with organizational design, responsibility structure, and management ability.

And I now think that its essence was not a 'free organization,' but
'how to design a structure that runs autonomously'.