Schlagwort-Archive: Stability

Mortar – the ideal metaphor for the purpose of Governance

Enterprises are always looking for new ways, in order to set themselves up in the best way by smartly distributing the tasks. In the past the tasks were divided into as small parts as possible and provided with goals that unfortunately did not always fit to each other. As a result there are the corporate areas research & development, production, sales and so on. Today everybody makes efforts to reverse this development and to implement holistic solutions with process orientation and agile organization. No matter how you set up yourself, you need a connecting element between the parts – the governance. In order to explain the purpose of governance, mortar that joins building blocks to a stable whole is a good metaphor.

The interactions of many functions, units and employees within enterprises must be ensured. The following attributes of the Governance should enable this interaction.

  • Leveling
    Without mortar, it is very difficult to build a custom-fit masonry. The unevenness of the stones corresponds to the blurring of the components of a company. The adaptable mortar compensates for unevenness and connects the blocks in the right plumb line.
    Accordingly, the governance provides answers, which are not so critical within the individual areas, but ensure the accuracy between each other by balancing the scope of action across all areas.
  • Cohesion
    After the stones are piled up with the moist mortar to the desired wall, the whole dries to a stone-like mass. The walls hold together as if they were made of one stone. At the same time, the joints are designed to absorb climatic fluctuations.
    Governance must be prepared to cope with fluctuations in business requirements, e.g. through a common set of values that provides a framework for difficult times.
  • Stability
    You cannot simply put stones together with mortar. An overall statics is required for the wall to fulfill its tasks. The overall plan provides the basis for this. If the static of the building is OK, i.e. if there are no imbalances that let the wall collapse over time, then the build-up will likely last for a long time.
    Accordingly, it is not enough to introduce governance. The building blocks must also be meaningfully aligned to each other, e.g. through a shared vision and long-term goals.

As the mortar is the binder between stones, the jointly decided governance holds the enterprise together and ensures that everybody is aligned to the same direction.

Bottom line: There are rarely walls that work without mortar. The same applies to companies that do not function without governance. Therefore, to convey the purpose of governance, mortar is a good example, as it allows any   sizes of walls and stabilizes buildings. The crucial thing is to connect the parts of the company in such a way that they stick together and perform their tasks in a stable way. In this sense, mix your mortar and ensure that way the cohesion of your area.

P.S.: See also the elements of Governance.

N-legged

Seats differ from each other depending on the use. There is no one and only solution, because the requirements deviate from each other in each case. This becomes evident with the one-legged milking stool that is fastened with a belt and that provides maximum mobility. In contrast, the office chair comes along on five legs and offers maximum stability despite the rollers. Accordingly, businesses need in each case a certain number of pillars in order to fulfill the purpose of the enterprise.

The equivalents of the supporting legs are in business the responsibilities for projects, tasks, products, organizations and similar, which are assigned under one roof. The following thoughts are intended to stimulate the consideration of this question.

  1. The one-legged approach concentrates on one purpose. The project manager, who is responsible for one project, concentrates just on it and ensures that nothing goes wrong. The available capacity is fully assigned to the project.
  2. Stability rises, as soon as a further pillar is added. On two legs, it suits better than on one. Employees, who settle two tasks, do not need to give everything. They have thereby a larger variety at work.
  3. The three-legged approach secures the stable condition. A responsible person has healthy variety with three products. The diversification prevents harmful routine and enables skillful distribution of the available resources. Three main points are within our cognitive abilities and therefore well workable.
  4. From another leg, arise four sides that topple more easily. Accordingly, organizations that consist of four areas reach a complexity that is still manageable, but already reach an increased risk.
  5. The five-legged approach has a manageable complexity and stands stable. However, the attention per topic is limited to 20% – in other words four days a month or one and a half hours a day. Thus, the limits of manageability are reached.
  6. More legs increase the complexity and become less manageable and eventually become too much of a risk. The attention is always absorbed by the “squeaking wheel”. One can take care of the other areas, if they create bigger problems than the others do. The consequence is a swinging back and forth between the areas.

Bottom line: Stability is best achieved from three to five pillars. Keep the number of tasks, products or organizations that are in one responsibility, within this range. As soon as the number continues to rise, the (cell)division into new units is recommended.