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.

Eliminate the Bosses? Organizational Transformation or Corporate Fad?

Source: https://www.organimi.com/

The Wall Street Journal's Chip Cutter has written about the transformation underway at Bayer, led by its new CEO, Bill Anderson. The article is titled, "One CEO’s Radical Fix for Corporate Troubles: Purge the Bosses." The 160-year-old company has struggled mightily in recent years, particularly after a problematic acquisition of Monsanto. Anderson's transformation plan calls for the establishment of 5,000 to 6,000 self-directed teams, as well as the elimination of many middle management roles.  He has taken aim at the pile of rules and regulations that govern employee conduct and decision making, hoping to streamline many processes.   

While the ambitious plan has many attractive features, it raises some concerning questions in my mind.  First, as I read the article, I'm reminded of the quote by the American writer and former State Department official Charlton Ogburn, Jr. He once said, "We tend to meet any new situation by reorganization, and a wonderful method it is for creating the illusion of progress at a mere cost of confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."  In many companies, attempts to redesign the organizational structure occur frequently.  Yet, CEOs are fooling themselves if they think that they will find an optimal organizational structure.  No such thing exists.  Each structure has its weaknesses.  Moreover, many transformation attempts create confusion and anxiety, as employees struggle to determine who has the decision rights on key issues.  

The WSJ article mentions that Anderson's transformation plan has introduced a whole new vocabulary regarding titles and processes.  Employees need to attend training to understand their new roles and responsibilities.  While a common language can be helpful, sometimes we are simply replacing one set of acronyms with another, without effecting profound cultural change.  Anderson will have to watch for signs of confusion in his workforce.  Moreover, there will always be some employees who think to themselves, "This too shall pass," having seen what they consider other corporate fads come and go.  Anderson will have to persuade them that this organizational transformation is not another fad.

One final thought from Wharton’s Peter Cappelli: he has compared serial reorganizing to the common tendency for doctors to administer antibiotics for minor illnesses.   He has argued that such prescriptions might address the pain and discomfort of the moment, but have adverse effects over the long run.   Why?  He argues that employees may lose faith in their senior leaders if they don't understand the rationale for yet another restructuring, if they are unclear about their roles and responsibilities, or if they think that it is yet another "flavor of the month."  

Anderson's plan has the potential to eliminate or streamline inefficient processes, while empowering employees closer to the actual work to make important decisions.  His goal is admirable and well-intentioned.  He just needs to make sure that he focuses on changing the culture and behavior, and not get too caught up in the boxes and arrows on organization charts.   

There is No Optimal Organizational Structure

Many senior executives seem to obsess over organizational structure.   They love to move the boxes and arrows around on organization charts.  Today we are a functional organization; tomorrow we will organize ourselves by product line.  That will solve our problems!  It will make us more customer-focused!  We will improve speed to market!  One year later, they shift to a geographically-focused organization chart.  That will solve our problems!  We need to think globally, but act locally!  We will adapt more effectively to local customs and cultures!   Executives should stop obsessing over the boxes and arrows on those organizational charts.  No "optimal" structure exists.  Each type has its strengths AND its flaws. 

Executives should recall the old adage coined by Rufus Miles, Jr. - a senior government official in the administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. Miles coined the phrase, "Where you stand depends on where you sit." In other words, your stance on key issues depends not simply on your own judgments, values, and beliefs.  It also depends on your position within an organization.  Your views will represent the interests and goals of your unit. 

What is the implication of Miles' perspective?  It means that leaders should focus on getting their team members to understand how the structure of an organization often drives its strategy.   They should challenge the executives to consider this important question:  How might we look at this strategic decision differently if we were organized differently?  In other words, are we allowing structure to drive strategy (rather than the other way around)?   Leaders need to encourage team members to stand in each others' shoes.  They need to be able to understand why people in other units, regions, or lines of business have different beliefs, positions, and perspectives.  They need to understand how current structures might be leading to certain biases in decision making.  In the end, no optimal organizational structure exists.  However, the best firms understand the limitations of their particular structure.   The best companies do not allow the organization chart to drive decision making. 

Restructuring at Microsoft

Yesterday, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announced a massive organizational restructuring of the company.   According to the Wall Street Journal, "Microsoft Corp.'s broad reorganization announced Thursday aims to break down internal fiefs that have slowed product development and caused friction among teams of employees... The company said it will shift from largely autonomous product groups to a more horizontal structure, under which managers who will oversee specific kinds of functions like engineering, marketing and finance."

Here are a few quick reactions:

1.  The Ballmer memo to the company consisted of more than 2,700 words.  Wow!   If you need that many words to describe what you are doing and why you are doing it.... do you really have a clear strategy?   Will employees really digest all of this material, understand it clearly, and align behind it?  First rule of thumb for leader communication:  keep it simple & concise.  The Ballmer approach falls down on this metric.

2.  No organizational structure is optimal.  Each structure has its strengths and weaknesses.  The key to high performance is driving the right culture, values, and processes in an organization.  Just moving lines and boxes around on an organizational chart won't enhance performance substantially.  Microsoft will succeed or fail based on how they redesign key processes and shift the culture and values.   Boxes and arrows won't  be the panacea.

3.  One still wonders if Microsoft should remain as an intact entity versus breaking up into several parts.  Many investors have wondered if the whole is truly worth more than the sum of the parts.  That question still remains after the Ballmer announcement. 

Does a Flat Organization Have Negative Consequences?

Julie Wolf of Harvard Business School has conducted an extensive study of companies that have tried to flatten their organizational structure.  She studied historical data on 300 large U.S. firms over a 15-year period, and she conducted interviews and analysis of CEO calendars.   She examines the consequences of attempts by large firms to "flatten their hierarchies" - something often recommended to improve performance.   The conventional wisdom is that we should flatten hierarchies so as to push decision-making down to the lowest level possible.  However, Wolf found an unintended consequence of such flattening efforts: "Results suggest that flattening transferred some decision rights from lower-level division managers to functional managers at the top. Flattening is also associated with increased CEO involvement with direct reports—the second level of top management—suggesting a more hands-on CEO at the pinnacle of the hierarchy."  In short, by removing layers, we may be pushing decision-making up the organization, rather than down to the people at the local level with specific knowledge about the customer, markets, technologies, and the like.  Flattening could lead to a more centralized management structure.

I've always believed that organizational structure is a blunt weapon.  Structure is an easy lever to pull if an executive wants to reduce costs and influence behavior.  However, simply moving boxes and arrows on the organizational chart often does not lead to higher performance.   Structural change must be accompanied by process and cultural change.  Specifically, Wolf's research suggests that firms need to be very clear about the allocation of decision rights when layers are removed.  I also think that firms need to pay close attention to status/informal hierarchies, rather than only focusing on the formal organizational structure.   Often, the informal hierarchy drives decision-making processes.   The values of the organization drive decision-making processes.  Flattening of the formal structure has to be accompanied by an effort to reduce the salience of status differences, and it has to be buttressed by leadership which emphasizes the value of putting decision-making in the hands of those closest to the work.