Does anyone think that self-management is a good idea?
Can you imagine a company where all of its employees (and not just a select few) are empowered to make important decisions that affect their work? Where anyone can not only make suggestions on what will work best for clients, but also create and lead teams to implement solutions to the problems raised.
For the hundreds of thousands of employees around the world who work for companies that have adopted self-directed management structures, this is how they work every day.
Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh recently made headlines for switching that company to a self-management structure called a Holocracy, where everyone operates in “circles” and there are no internal “Manager” titles, however, more experienced employees are given a mentoring role to fulfill within the company.
Journalists from all over the world have tried to make sense of it: the common thread is “without managers, everything will be chaos!” However, as usual with these things, everything old is new again.
Actually, you probably know someone who works on these types of systems. You may have even worked on one yourself. In fact, approximately 10% of organizations worldwide have adopted some form of self-management.
For nearly 25 years, corporate giant 3M has been one of a handful of business organizations employing self-managed work teams they call “Pods.” They have been shown to be 30% to 50% more effective than their traditional counterparts.
The benefits of using a “capsule” system, according to senior 3M employees, are numerous. As well as offering obvious corporate benefits such as increased flexibility, reduced operating costs, improved quality, productivity and service, they also offer cultural benefits.
For example, with the pod structure, there are simpler job classifications. Employees tend to feel more valued for their individual contribution, which increases their commitment to the organization as a whole. The company can communicate its goals and employees can act on them without feeling hampered by the bureaucracy of management above them.
Other companies such as Xerox, Federal Express, Johnson & Johnson, Procter and Gamble, and AT&T have credited their self-managed teams with increasing the quality of customer service, reducing service errors, achieving multi-million dollar inventory reductions, increasing production profits, and reduce staffing needs. while increasing efficiency. Simply by giving their existing employees the ability to make the changes they felt most needed, their companies were able to succeed.
One reason is the cross-functional nature of these teams. In each group or circle, no one person has all the responsibility for a project. If someone is unable to fully contribute, it will be addressed quickly. And, in the event of a “missing man,” the equipment can still function without any downtime.
If these teams are more successful, does that mean it’s suitable for everyone?
There are some elements of self-management that can work in any organization, however, a complete turnaround like 3M and Zappos have done lends itself better to certain industries. I have personally seen this type of structure work wonderfully in the airline and technology industries.
It’s about being in a company with a strong vision that is clearly communicated, so that when employees take action, they know the company has their back.
And really, that’s all that matters anyway.
