Women Rise to Executive Ranks More Often in Decentralized Organizations

Does organizational structure affect the likelihood that women will climb to C-suite positions?  Indeed, it seems that structure has a substantial impact.  Women tend to do better in decentralized organizations.  That finding emerges from new research by Tingyu Du and Ulya Tsolmon.   They assembled a dataset of over 15,200 companies with nearly 600,000 managers.  The scholars state that, "Our findings suggest that decentralized organizational structure seems more conducive to reducing the gender gap than centralized structures." 

The scholars explain their finding by focusing on the skills that are needed in centralized vs. decentralized organizations, as well as the differences in the way that performance is measured and evaluated. The scholars argue that decentralized firms with leaders of separate units, each with their own P&L, tend to have clearer performance metrics than managers in highly centralized firms. The scholars conclude, "“In decentralized organizations, managers often have clearer accountability for their units’ performance, making their achievements more recognizable both internally and externally." Women achieve promotions in those firms based on their abilities without confronting as much bias.  In the firms with a high degree of power centralization, performance is often harder to measure, and social networks, political capital, and relationships play a much larger role in the promotion process. Bias may be more prevalent in that setting, thereby limiting the likelihood that women will rise to the C-suite.

I'm struck by this finding because it makes sense intuitively, and I'm also intrigued because I don't think people have considered this relationship between structure and female advancement in the past. It seems that these scholars have discovered one more very important reason for reducing power centralization in organizations.

Communication Breakdowns During Leadership Transitions

Stephen Michael Impink, Andrea Prat, and Raffaella Sadun have published a thought-provoking paper titled "Communication within Firms: Evidence from CEO Turnovers." Impink and his co-authors studied internal communication data for more than 100 companies in the period around a CEO transition.  They found an interesting pattern.  First, during the three months following the appointment of a new CEO, email traffic and the number of meetings declined by approximately 20%.  Roughly five months after new CEOs began their tenure, communication increased to slightly more than the amount prior to the leadership transition.   Six months after the transition, meetings and email volume returned to approximately the level prior to the appointment of the new CEO.  

Why does communication dip immediately following the leadership transition? The authors suggest that employees are uncertain about the future strategy and direction of the organization.  Perhaps they are a bit confused.  People are waiting and watching, trying to interpret signals and analyze statements emerging from the C-suite.  A great deal of speculation about the future probably occurs, though likely amidst informal communication at the water cooler rather than through formal meetings.  

You can see the risk associated with this communication pattern.  The new leader may not want to pronounce their strategy in those first few weeks, as they learn about organization and diagnose the situation. Still, they have to be careful about just how much confusion and uncertainty might affect the organization.  If you leave people a vacuum, they will fill it... but with speculation and gossip, which might do more harm than good. 

Leaders would be well-served to keep employees in the loop as they proceed with their diagnostic and learning process.  Providing regular updates on the transition and meeting with people to collect feedback can help reduce stress and tamper down speculation. Giving people a rough timeline of how the transition will proceed can be helpful.  You don't want people paralyzed during a transition.  You want them to stay focused on executing, while the strategy reset is unfolding.  Finally, leaders need to ask themselves: what will most certainly NOT change?  Will the organization's foundational purpose remain the same? Will its values stay unchanged?  If so, let people know - loudly and clearly.  Reassure them regarding the things that will stay the same.  That will help alleviate much of the stress and confusion surrounding a transition. 

Keeping Secrets at Work: When Transparency Isn't Valued

We often hear discussion of the value of transparency in organizations.  Nevertheless, many employees become frustrated about the lack of openness in their organizations.  They wish that more information was shared about key initiatives so that they could understand future plans, as well as the rationale for pursuing certain courses of action.

In a new study, Michael Slepian, Eric Anicich, and Nir Halevy examine the issue of organizational secrecy.  They find that people who keep information from others in organizations experience personal benefits as well as costs.  On the negative side, the scholars report that individuals who maintain secrets tend to express more stress and social isolation.   However, withholding vital information from others also comes with certain benefits.   It boosts perceptions of status and privilege for those holding the secrets. They feel more valued in the organization and perceive their work to be more meaningful.   These findings should not surprise us.   Just think for a moment about how people with privileged access to information tend to behave in your own organization.  

While this study highlights certain key benefits and costs associated with secrecy, it leaves open the question of just how much withholding of information is necessary in organizations.  My sense is that, in many organizations, people are more secretive than they need to be.  They withhold information because these personal benefits (status, meaning) outweigh the personal costs.  That does not mean the lack of transparency is good for the organization as a whole.  People come up with all sorts of justifications for that secrecy, but often, these arguments don't hold water.  They are flimsy rationales for not being transparent.  Leaders should test these arguments and probe the rationale being used to justify secrecy.  The costs of disclosure need to be weighed against the substantial value that derives from being transparent.   

Founder Mode: Should Entrepreneurs Reject the Conventional Wisdom about How to Manage Their Companies?

Source: Y Combinator

Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham sparked a vibrant and wide-ranging discussion after posting a short essay titled, "Founder Mode," on his website.  He drafted his blog post as a reaction to a recent talk given by Airbnb founder Brian Chesky.   Graham and Chesky propose that entrepreneurs ought to reject the conventional wisdom about how to scale a business.   Graham writes:

The theme of Brian's talk was that the conventional wisdom about how to run larger companies is mistaken. As Airbnb grew, well-meaning people advised him that he had to run the company in a certain way for it to scale. Their advice could be optimistically summarized as "hire good people and give them room to do their jobs." He followed this advice and the results were disastrous. So he had to figure out a better way on his own, which he did partly by studying how Steve Jobs ran Apple. So far it seems to be working. Airbnb's free cash flow margin is now among the best in Silicon Valley.

Graham argues that the usual advice to avoid micromanagement might be wildly off-base when it comes to founders leading their companies as they scale.   In short, he suggests that we are advising founders to delegate far more than they should.  He argues that the most effective founders might very well dive deep into the details more often than conventional wisdom recommends.  They can and should talk directly to technical experts at lower levels of the organization and frequently conduct skip-level meetings.  They should employ "founder mode" rather than delegating as much as many leadership consultants suggest.  

Graham acknowledges that you have to adjust your management style as you scale a business.  You cannot run a large organization in the same way you operate a startup.   In short, managing in founder mode is complicated... 

To me, the key argument here is not about whether founders should delegate more or less often.  "Founder mode" sounds interesting, but what exactly does that mean?  The key issue is WHEN one should delegate and when it is appropriate and effective to take a deep dive on critical issues.  I would love to hear Chesky, Graham, and others explain how they think about THAT important leadership choice.  It's all well and good to reference successful founders such as Steve Jobs, but plenty of entrepreneurs meddle too much, alienate people by not trusting them to make decisions, and burn out their subordinates.   Advising entrepreneurs to embrace "founder mode" might do more harm than good unless we help them understand how and when to engage in those deep dives.