狠狠撸

Make it real!

ORG
PHYSICS EXPLAINED

How structures work, how they interact, what this
means for organizational effectiveness and change

BetaCodex Network Associates
Niels Pflaeging & Silke Hermann

BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 11, Jan 2011

“It is probable that one day we shall begin to
draw organization charts as a series of linked
groups rather than as a hierarchical structure
of individual “reporting" relationships”
Douglas McGregor,
The Human Side of the Enterprise, 1960

This paper was previously entitled “The 3 Structures of an Organization”, and renamed in Feb 2013.
White paper – Org Physics - Explained

2

Ask someone to take a piece of paper, and a pen.
And to draw the structure of his or her organization.

That person will usually come up with a
single design. One that resembles the “org
chart” type design shown on the right.
That, to be sure, happens anywhere in the world
(we tried it). Those perceived structures actually
look surprisingly similar anywhere – depending
on industry a bit, of course, and give or take a
few details and variations.


3

Today's professionals around the world perceive their
organizations as a set of “boxes”, populated by
“teams” that are each topped by “bosses”, and that are
interconnected through “reporting” or “line”
relationships. Horizontally, organizations are always
divided in a “functional” way, to some degree, but there
normally are additional divisional criteria, such as
products or divisions, regions, etc.
The trouble with this kind of structure is that it is just
an illusion. One that actually hinders success and
results, work flow, and the well-being of the people in it. It
represents a hopelessly limiting line of thinking about
organizations and about what they should be.


4

Organizations today are grossly ineffective. Because most of us
have flawed ideas about what actually makes them tick
The average organization

The best organizations
Share of
value-creating
energy

20%

Share of
value-creating
energy

30%
70%

80%
Share of energy
that does not create
external value

Share of energy
that does not create
external value

Organizations work through structures. And every organization has
three of those. Not one. The problem: Hardly anyone in business is aware
of that - and that's why so much investment into effectiveness and change
simply misses the point. Let's consider why this is urgent.

5

Most of today's organizations are phenomenally ineffective. When asked
what share of their organization’s total energy is applied to external value
creation (instead of into bureaucracy, administration, politicking, in-fighting
and waste), then the percentage given by managers, company owners and
employees alike is usually around 20%. The typical organization today thus is
likely to dedicate only about a fifth of its energy and resources to value
creation for external markets. Little wonder then that work often underwhelms
us.
At the same time, most of us acknowledge that the most effective
organizations are able to dedicate a far higher share of their energies to
relevant value creation – typically, the estimate is 70 or 80%. Some
exceptional companies thus make dramatically better use of their
capabilities. But what is it that makes the difference?
Our answer: Those vastly more effective firms understand structure.
In this paper, we will firstly introduce you to the little-known real world of
organizational structure – and we will secondly discuss the consequences and
the options for change.


6

The first structure: Informal Structure

The first structure of an organization
is Informal Structure.
Every organization has it. Informal
power and influence structures, group
norms and interaction patterns arise
wherever human beings come together.
They evolve in any social structure, and
in any human interaction.


7

Even though Informal Structure is a natural result
of social interaction, and creates the glue
between human beings in any group, it is rarely
given profound thought to by both smaller and
larger organizations.
Informal Structure by itself is neither good,
nor bad. It does, however, in many ways
influence organizational and individual well-being
and effectiveness: Informal Structure can, for
instance, unleash decisive action in crisis and
turmoil. But it can also, under certain conditions,
be the sources of mobbing, or total complacency.
Most organizations dedicate little energy to their Informal Structure, systematically, although
they invariably “tick” through them and much energy is employed into them in various ways. Many
managers have a tendency to disdain Informal Structure, considering it suspicious and undesirably
emotive, or feeling insecure about how to deal with it. As a consequence, these structures are
more often then not neither considered, nor consciously influenced.
Informal Structure has become more popularly known since the rise of social networks.
It can be mapped as “clouds” of interconnected individuals, with varying numbers of links to others
– placing individuals either in central or more peripheral positions in the cloud.

8

The second structure: Value Creation Structure

The second structure of an organization
is Value Creation Structure.
Like Informal Structure, any organization
has it: Because organizations of any kind
have to create value for its outside market,
and any organization that didn't have one
would cease to exist. It is through the Value
Creation Structure that value flows from the
inside to the outside, towards the external
market.


9

It is through this, and only this structure, that
performance and market success can be produced.
Value-generating work by nature only happens here.
Interestingly, though, Value Creation Structure is not
widely understood in firms, it is rarely systematically
designed, and most of the time not being invested In
systematically – with a few notable exceptions. One
company that has developed true mastery in
empowering and leading its Value Creation Structure, by
turning it into its dominant structure, is Toyota.
Value Creation Structures – aligned with systems
theory - can be mapped as networks of cells, which
contain functionally integrated teams, and which are
interrelated by value flow, pay, and communication
relationships. In the structure, any cells either creates
value for other network cells or for the outside market.
Cells, or teams, respond to market pull, not hierarchy.
Value Creation Structure and flows are, in many organizations, being hindered
and crippled by another type of structure – the third structure of an organization.

10

The third structure: Formal Structure

The third structure of an organization is
Formal Structure.
Formal Structure can produce compliance,
but it can never produce value. It is most
frequently mapped as a pyramid of
departmental boxes, interconnected by
power or “reporting“ relationships (the “org
chart”). This concept of structure stems
from the industrial-age thought leaders such
as Frederick Taylor, and from Isaac Newton's
“systems-as-machines” thinking.


11

Formal Structure should be judged by
only one measure: effectiveness. Does it
contribute to market success - or does it
serve internal purposes only?

?

The problem: When outside-in market
forces are hindered by hierarchical topdown relationships within an
organization, that is called bureaucracy.
Formal pyramid structures, as most
organizations employ them, tend to focus
on power relationships alone, and
people within them easily lose sight of
outside markets and customers, serving instead the hierarchy and
“bosses”. The result is command and control. Not competitive success.
Also, managers mistakenly believe that “work” is done through Formal
Structure somehow – though, systemically, this is impossible.


?

12

Centralized top-down organization is never aligned with market,
customer, or shareholder interests - even though it is commonplace to
mistake shareholder interests with the necessity to create internal hierarchy.
Power structures are in fact never induced at all by external stakeholders, but
instead by (wasteful) internal centralization of influence and power. External
compliance and internal discipline, however, can also easily be produced
within a decentralized network structure.
If value creation for the external market is not to be hindered, then minimal
organizational energy should go into Formal Structure. Formal Structure, as
it can solely serve the trivial purpose of external compliance, should be
subdued to or coherent with Value Creation Structure, in which the work
is done and where organizational periphery is in charge, not bosses.
Organizational reality today mostly is very different from that: Formal
Structure receives a lot of attention. That in turn leads to waste, fiddling with
tools and processes, pointless restructuring, and to breeding the illusion of
control at the top.


13

Putting it all together.
The three structures and their interrelation
The three structures of an
organization strongly
influence each other.
Remember:
Value creation only occurs
through the 2nd structure,
whereas the 1st is a natural
collateral of social
interaction and bonding.
The 3rd serves only for
external compliance, while it
can easily get in the way of
value creation, due to
disempowerment of an
organization's people.

1.? Informal
Structure

Interrelations
2.? Value Creation
Structure

3.? Formal
Structure


? ?
14

Impacts: How to organize ineffectively.
This is how you do it.
Let's imagine an organization with a
traditional, command and control-type
Formal Structure: A part of its
organizational energy and resources,
let's say 30% of it, go into the Informal
Structure, as a side effect of the social
interaction in the firm. This
organization also invests a good deal
of energy and resources, let's say
50% of the total, into Formal Structure
– processes, planning, centralized
coordination, hierarchical control, topdown decision-making. Into what is
usually referred to as “managing”.

ineffective
1. Informal

30%

2. Value Creation

20%

3. Formal

50%

The remaining of the total
organizational energy, or 20%, go into
generation of value, and create real
performance. In other words: into the
structure where the real work is done.

15

Here, autocracy and top-down management force more of
people's energy than would be strictly necessary into the Informal
Structure: Like in a dictatorship, or in a soviet state, command
and control provokes fear, defense mechanisms, internal
politicking and infighting. In this kind of organization, people have
to defend themselves against the top, and against others who
might blame or harass them. Informal Structures here turn
predominantly negative, due to mistrust.
Most organizations today are just like this. It is a rather
ineffective way of running an organization. Far too little
organizational energy goes into value creation, too much is
wasted.
This is an “alpha” kind of organization.


16

Impacts: How to organize far more effectively
Now imagine a rather different
organization: One that doesn't believe in
Formal Structure, One that considers
all management and centralization of
power toxic and harmful, and refuses to
put energy into Formal Structure, except
when needed for external compliance.
One that believes so strongly in its
people that it won't let get anything
between them and the external market.
This kind of organization systematically
empowers teams to improve work and
value flow - always. It loathes waste and
puts everyone In charge to fight it. Here,
the periphery is in charge - bosses keep
their hands to themselves, refraining
from micro-management. Control is not
hierarchical, but social. As little as 10%
of organizational energy here might go
into Formal Structure.

effective
1. Informal

20%

2. Value Creation

70%

3. Formal

10%

17

Here, leaders battle against bureaucracy and work hard on
maintaining the sense of urgency high. As the firm does not put
pressure on formal top-down structures, less or its people's energy
has to go into the Informal Structure: Instead of allowing for
command and control to provoke fear and internal infighting,
people find the time to dedicate their passion and abilities to
innovation and continuous improvement – which both, ultimately,
serve value creation. Thus, only 20% or total organizational energy
In this firm go into the Informal Structure. The remaining 70% can
be applied to Value Creation.
This is probably as effective as an organization can be. You
want a name for it? You might call it Google, or Southwest Airlines,
or W.L.Gore, or dm-drogerie markt, or Toyota.
This is a “beta” kind of organization.


18

Effective or ineffective organization:
There is a choice
Maybe your are asking yourself now: Who in his right mind would support an
organizational structure that is so ineffective that it dramatically fails to serve the
organizations purpose - which is creating value for society? (see structure on left)

ineffective

effective

1. Informal

30%

1. Informal

20%

2. Value Creation

20%

2. Value Creation

70%

3. Formal

50%

3. Formal

10%


19

The fact is: Today, far too many organizations dedicate far too little of their
energy and resources systematically to structures 1 and 2. Far too much
energy and resources go into structure 3 - creating no value and
actually stifling performance through hierarchy, bureaucracy, and the
command-and-control culture that top-down management breeds.
Theories abound about why organizations have so far not systematically
and broadly moved away from command and control management and
structure. On is that managers at the top are simply addicted to power. We
do not believe in that theory. We are convinced, instead, that broad
understanding of the alternative to management and hierarchy is
missing, and that we urgently need to develop it, in order to stop the
massive waste of resources that management thinking inflicts.
We do not need different, or better people. We need different, and better
organizational thinking, design, and effective action.


20

What “organizational transformation” is. And what it means.
Organizational transformation intended
to produce higher organizational and
individual success, effectiveness, and
happiness, should consequently focus
1. Informal
on the following guiding principles:
Invest for
positive resonance
1.? Eliminate Formal Structure, as
much as possible, by fully aligning
it with value creation and by
2. Value Creation
allowing it only for external
Turn it everyone's
compliance. Make the work
center of attention
independent of formal structure.
2.? Focus all organizational energy
(e.g. with regards to learning
3. Formal
and mastery) on the first two
Reduce/eliminate
it; align with
structures - not on formal strucvalue creation
ture, which is trivial. Approach
Informal and Value Creation Structures with a systemic mindset.
3.? Support the positive effects of Informal Structure through high levels of
transparency, investment in self-awareness of teams, radical decentralization
of decision-making towards the periphery, and also through bonding rituals,
and strong, shared values and principles.

21

It is worth noting that the radically decentralized network, or “beta”
organization, is a reality in all organizations already, in that all have
their own Value Creation Structures in place. The problem is that this
structure is so often subdued to a hindering Formal Structure.
Value Creation Structure, in this sense, is far more real then the
type of Formal Structure that is shown in the typical org chart. In
organizational practice, artifacts of the Value Creation Structure often
go by the names of project teams, task forces, customer or product
teams. It is this structure that remains to be empowered, in order to
create full-fledge BetaCodex organizations, and to fulfill human
potential at work.


22

Acknowledgement and further recommended reading
The concept outlined in this paper was
inspired by a book from German business
thinker Uwe Renald Mueller, published in
the mid-90?s and entitled Machtwechsel im
Management (Haufe). Somewhat hidden in
that book, you could find an illustration entitled
“Companies always have three organizational
levels” (pictured on the right).
Here, Mueller distinguished between three
structures: Virtual Structures (the Value
Creation Structure), Formal Organization and
Interlinked Forums (somewhat similar to
Informal Structure). He argued that Virtual
Structures were “much more real in real-world
organizations” than what managers use to
draw up in their command-and-control org
charts. The concept inspired us to think afresh
about the theory of organizational “levels”, and
to align this concept with scientific insights not
available to Mueller at the time – from social
sciences, systems theory, and the like.

23

The result presented here is an update, a review and a substantial
extension of Mueller's level concept from the 90s, but not a
complete reinvention.
For further information on Value Creation Structure and about why
it should follow the laws of the BetaCodex, read our 2-part white
paper “Turn Your Company Outside-In!”,
Part 1 - www.betacodex.org/node/389.
Part 2 - www.betacodex.org/node/390.
For more about why org structure today must reflect the nature of
complex markets and complex value creation, read our white
paper “Organize for Complexity”, www.betacodex.org/node/1316.
For the human nature underpinnings of the structures and the
BetaCodex, read Douglas McGregor's book The Human Side of
the Enterprise, especially the annotated edition from 2008
(McGraw Hill).


24

The BetaCodex Network white papers - so far

Special
?
Edi+on
?

Special
?
Edi+on
?

Find all BetaCodex Network white papers on www.betacodex.org/papers and on 狠狠撸share.
White paper – The 3 Structures of an Organization

25

? BetaCodex Network – All rights reserved

Make it real!

www.betacodex.org

Silke Hermann

silke.hermann@
insights-group.de
Wiesbaden–Berlin-New York

Get in touch with us for
more information about
leading transformation with
the BetaCodex, and ask us
for a keynote or a workshop
proposal.

Walter Larralde
wlarralde@
on-strategy.com.mx
Mexico City

Niels Pflaeging
niels@betacodex.org
nielspflaeging.com
New York-Wiesbaden

Valérya Carvalho
valeria@betacodex.org
Betaleadership.com
S?o Paulo

Lars Vollmer

vollmer@v-und-s.de
www.lars-vollmer.com
Hannover-Stuttgart

Chris Catto
christopher.catto@
putneybreeze.com.au
Melbourne

狠狠撸

Org Physics- Explained (white paper)

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (6)

Similar to Org Physics- Explained (white paper) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Org Physics- Explained (white paper)