Silos

Silos are often maintained as a way to keep employees in the dark about the overall strategic direction and interworkings of an organization. I worked for a company like that, where there was a lot of talk about goals and balanced score cards, but when you looked at the reality - the execs were spewing rhetoric and they did not understand the definitions of what they were talking about. Individuals and departments had goals, but there were no interdepartmental goals. So the result was often conflicting goals and a complete lack of knowledge about that. It was an awful situation to find myself in, breathed a huge sigh of relief when I left.Those type of organizations do not realize the HUGE possibilities that open up when you eliminate the silos and encourage collaboration. A new world is opened up to the organization and also the employees are empowered as decision makers and influencers...this is scary for orgs that are used to maintaining the silos.Ultimately, I say tear them down, great things await... Thanks for this thought-provoking question! Sincerely, @ambercleveland

Excellent question - and one that is so important to address not only in organizations but in schools. Susan and Wally - your posts on the limitations of clarifying roles/ responsibilities and the need to move on from the "well-oiled machine" are right on. The industrial economy fostered concepts like "doing your part", not being a "cog in the wheel" - essentially plugging individuals into an externally defined, relatively static system. To staff this economy, our school systems and colleges prepared us for those roles and to fit into those economic and organizational structures: "what do you want to be when you grow up" and "what's your major" being the focus. This supports Jen's reference to safety and security - we've been trained to seek it out and secure it. The knowledge/information economy requires ingenuity, flexibility, comfort with ambiguity, creativity, dynamic application of talent and much much greater collaboration. Yet, with our industrial revolution style school system, how are we developing these qualities in future managers and employees? I asked a similar question in a recent post: "We're Built Wrong" http://bit.ly/aqcK3h. There's a link in that post to a great article in which the author references the fact that some Native American tribes would have different chiefs for war and for peace. Consider the impact to our organizations if staff had the dynamic flexibility to align and apply individual talents rather than rigidly defending roles and responsibilities like they were a birthright.I am piloting a new program for K - 12 grades (a grant has just been approved to try it out with 12 school systems here in Massachusetts!) to encourage exploration of one's own motivation factors and helping students to develop a better sense of what they bring to the world of work and how to purposefully engage in selecting and succeeding at work. We're introducing the concept to organizations as well: developing shared goals, managing vulnerabilities, identifying and applying talents, defining one's purpose in relation to the objective and committing to specific (but flexible) contributions. My hope is that we are able to support that move to the "living system" approach that Wally mentions. I look forward to hearing more!

An interesting conversation. You, Richard and Susan make some excellent points and raise some thought provoking questions. One of the things you mention in your initial post is that a silo is something that "keeps you hidden from view". This reinforces the concept of status quo. If I continually fall under the radar, I'm able to maintain my comfort, avoid controversy and create a (false) sense of security. For some, that may be reason enough to seek behaviors that reinforce silos within an organization. The organizational culture may also reinforce silos. The culture is created by individuals. If the prevailing cultural norm supports the machine based model that Susan mentioned, then it would be daunting for one person to challenge that norm. However, I am a firm believer that individuals can make a difference. Whether or not they are willing to confront the status quo becomes the issue.

I think both. The days of certainty about our roles and the future as well as our ability to maintain the comforting illusion that we are in control have slipped away. Until we shift our mindset we will continue to try to recreate a world that no longer exists, individually and in our organizations, rather than invent new ways to feel "on solid ground" in the face of increasing complexity and pace of change. Here is the link to the other post I mentioned: http://randomactsofleadership.com/2010/05/25/the-responsibility-myt/

I think one reason is that silos create a sense of identity (and safety). We often define ourselves not in terms of our relationship with one another, but rather based on what makes us distinct ever reinforcing the notion of us/them. Another reason is that have been trained to believe we can only only take ownership of that which we can control which further reinforces the need to make explicit what we do vs. what they do. I think these things (and the beliefs behind them) are also in the way big time of creating accountable working relationships as well.On a more theoretical level, Silos pervade organizations because we are stuck in a machine based model that reinforces "my job vs. yours" in the name of making things clear, "controllable" and efficient rather than a complex adaptive systems model that focuses on acknowledging and empowering our interconnectedness fo the sake of effectiveness and adaptability. Wally Bock put up a post called "Well-Oiled Machine" is So Last Century http://ht.ly/1UtWY that touches on this. I wrote a post a few weeks ago titled "The Responsibility Myth" that talks about this at the practical level of defining our roles and responsibilities.I am really looking forward to the comments on this question!

Yes. The funny thing is that while companies block employee access to social media sites, the employees are twittering and conversing on Facebook via their phones. I think there will be an interim step where companies create their own intra company social sites that they will then be able to monitor company messages being shared outside the network... what do you think?

@Justin. Great points, fella. It depends on the buy-in and belief of the management and those responsible for allocating budgets to new ventures. Unless there's buy-in from those that make change (or at least proper interest in buy-in), no amount of ambassadorship or evangelism will make the difference. Sadly.@Amber. Couldn't agree more. Probably why I've worked better *with* corporate as opposed to *for* them... ;-)

@justin - tear them down absolutely. The trick is the how and that has to come from senior management as I've stated. This involves a significant step change - along with the reassurances to the managers that do engage that they will not lose out as a consequence.@danny - the CEO should not necessarily need to move if he/she is aware of enough to know when things aren't working and is willing to move the organisation to a more open structure. Again - challenging.

Silos are often maintained as a way to keep employees in the dark about the overall strategic direction and interworkings of an organization. I worked for a company like that, where there was a lot of talk about goals and balanced score cards, but when you looked at the reality - the execs were spewing rhetoric and they did not understand the definitions of what they were talking about. Individuals and departments had goals, but there were no interdepartmental goals. So the result was often conflicting goals and a complete lack of knowledge about that. It was an awful situation to find myself in, breathed a huge sigh of relief when I left.Those type of organizations do not realize the HUGE possibilities that open up when you eliminate the silos and encourage collaboration. A new world is opened up to the organization and also the employees are empowered as decision makers and influencers...this is scary for orgs that are used to maintaining the silos.Ultimately, I say tear them down, great things await... Thanks for this thought-provoking question! Sincerely, @ambercleveland

Such a great topic and perspectives!@Richard Companies that block social media sites might as well pass out T-shirts to their senior leaders that say "We don't care how our customers want to be communicated with.""@Susan You are exactly right on the mine vs yours mentality. Companies should incentivize employees on the overall performance of the brand and hold employees accountable for not getting out of their department sandbox to share.@Jen Culture absolutely affirms silos. But as @Barney mentions, the senior leaders are often the individuals that can really invoke change or put a glass ceiling on the efforts of individual employees. So many companies manage top down.@Monica What's funny about the fear factor is there is evidence to show social work tools and collaboration breed company pride and loyalty. Yet so many companies go against the research. IMO, it's a management issue, period.@Danny The CEO is the one who can begin to create culture change. In my experience at Sprint, Dan Hesse could have said we are going to use social media as a way to communicate with employees and provide insights into the frontlines of our business, and people would have begun to change the way they worked. He didn't say not to do that, but never gave that type of directive. Therefore, social media grew much more as a grassroots effort.My for you all is IDing the silos issue is the first step, but how do you suggest breaking them down? Governance best practices?

Great points, Barney. I know of companies where the CEO has been there for about 10 years or so. That has to stifle change - most CEO's stay around 3-5 years, do the great stuff and move on. Perhaps that's where the change needs to begin, combined with the private forums that you suggest?

Hi Danny - in alot of instances yes. The only way to deal with that is at the very top of the food chain where it is actively encouraged and driven down. Usually this involves a changing of the guard though. There needs to be forums where people can create their ideas and share outside of their own "silo"/organisational structure where a cross-section of snr management see the ideas being put forward. This way, if there is a member of the mgmt team or exec protecting their own backs, others will still get to see those ideas. And perhaps deal with the offending mgr to boot :)

@Monica. What do you find the biggest reasons across the board, Monica? Is it the same regardless of industry, or do you find certain industries fare better at openness than others?@Barney. So would you say it's "higher-ups" trying to keep their own backs safe as opposed to sharing brilliance?

Hi Danny. Having experienced the worst of silos in a prior life - I would put it down to poor/out-dated management practices and narrow-minded knowledge protection a.k.a. job protection (perceived, not actual).

There is so much misplaced fear in organizations! Fear of losing talent avoids sharing and letting people shine...and also prevents building of new talent to rise after this one if it goes. The sheer ammount of busy, unimportant work that keeps people separated is created by thoughtless practices designed to make people feel important without actually contributing all they can to the work! People in fear of losing their job will try to outshine the rest and get lost in the attempt without collaboration. We are living an industrial revolution mindset in a whole new era that begs collaboration and systemic thinking. Silos are sadly very much alive in the corporate environment. They are the #1 cause people will call us in to consult with them. And they are sad to see. We need to re-include practices such as openness and connectedness that will counter an overly individualistic culture.

@Jen. Agreed, Jen. After all, just think if Steve Jobs had remained at Apple initially, instead of the falling out that saw him leave and then return to take over. A lot of today's great products would probably never have seen the light of day.@Wally. I've always been a fan of the "surround yourself with great smart people" mentality, Wally. No-one knows everything, and just because you're head of a company doesn't necessarily mean you know every single thing that's great for your company. Offering a voice and platform to the "juniors" can only benefit.@Julie. That sounds like an excellent program, Julie, and one that can only increase the knowledge and skill sets these kids (and others like them) need. The industrial revolution was a key game-changer in many ways; yet in others it set up a process that now stifles creativity. Here's hoping mindsets like yours continue to grow inquisitive minds on why the status quo doesn't always benefit.

Excellent question - and one that is so important to address not only in organizations but in schools. Susan and Wally - your posts on the limitations of clarifying roles/ responsibilities and the need to move on from the "well-oiled machine" are right on. The industrial economy fostered concepts like "doing your part", not being a "cog in the wheel" - essentially plugging individuals into an externally defined, relatively static system. To staff this economy, our school systems and colleges prepared us for those roles and to fit into those economic and organizational structures: "what do you want to be when you grow up" and "what's your major" being the focus. This supports Jen's reference to safety and security - we've been trained to seek it out and secure it. The knowledge/information economy requires ingenuity, flexibility, comfort with ambiguity, creativity, dynamic application of talent and much much greater collaboration. Yet, with our industrial revolution style school system, how are we developing these qualities in future managers and employees? I asked a similar question in a recent post: "We're Built Wrong" http://bit.ly/aqcK3h. There's a link in that post to a great article in which the author references the fact that some Native American tribes would have different chiefs for war and for peace. Consider the impact to our organizations if staff had the dynamic flexibility to align and apply individual talents rather than rigidly defending roles and responsibilities like they were a birthright.I am piloting a new program for K - 12 grades (a grant has just been approved to try it out with 12 school systems here in Massachusetts!) to encourage exploration of one's own motivation factors and helping students to develop a better sense of what they bring to the world of work and how to purposefully engage in selecting and succeeding at work. We're introducing the concept to organizations as well: developing shared goals, managing vulnerabilities, identifying and applying talents, defining one's purpose in relation to the objective and committing to specific (but flexible) contributions. My hope is that we are able to support that move to the "living system" approach that Wally mentions. I look forward to hearing more!

I think Susan's right that silos offer a sense of safety and control. The problem is that they're based on two assumptions that don't work in a knowledge economy for most businesses. Assumption 1 is that this organization is all we'll ever need. Knowledge Economies reward adaptability more than extensive pre-planning. Assumption 2 is that the people at the top of the silo know more than the people down below. In a Knowledge Economy, especially, this isn't ture much of the time.

An interesting conversation. You, Richard and Susan make some excellent points and raise some thought provoking questions. One of the things you mention in your initial post is that a silo is something that "keeps you hidden from view". This reinforces the concept of status quo. If I continually fall under the radar, I'm able to maintain my comfort, avoid controversy and create a (false) sense of security. For some, that may be reason enough to seek behaviors that reinforce silos within an organization. The organizational culture may also reinforce silos. The culture is created by individuals. If the prevailing cultural norm supports the machine based model that Susan mentioned, then it would be daunting for one person to challenge that norm. However, I am a firm believer that individuals can make a difference. Whether or not they are willing to confront the status quo becomes the issue.

I think both. The days of certainty about our roles and the future as well as our ability to maintain the comforting illusion that we are in control have slipped away. Until we shift our mindset we will continue to try to recreate a world that no longer exists, individually and in our organizations, rather than invent new ways to feel "on solid ground" in the face of increasing complexity and pace of change. Here is the link to the other post I mentioned: http://randomactsofleadership.com/2010/05/25/the-responsibility-myt/

These are some great points you make there, Susan, and I'll definitely check out the posts.Would you say a lot of it has to do with our own mindsets, then, and that change needs to come from within? Or that employers still want to maintain the "old" status quo, despite the fact the business landscape is so obviously changing?

I think one reason is that silos create a sense of identity (and safety). We often define ourselves not in terms of our relationship with one another, but rather based on what makes us distinct ever reinforcing the notion of us/them. Another reason is that have been trained to believe we can only only take ownership of that which we can control which further reinforces the need to make explicit what we do vs. what they do. I think these things (and the beliefs behind them) are also in the way big time of creating accountable working relationships as well.On a more theoretical level, Silos pervade organizations because we are stuck in a machine based model that reinforces "my job vs. yours" in the name of making things clear, "controllable" and efficient rather than a complex adaptive systems model that focuses on acknowledging and empowering our interconnectedness fo the sake of effectiveness and adaptability. Wally Bock put up a post called "Well-Oiled Machine" is So Last Century http://ht.ly/1UtWY that touches on this. I wrote a post a few weeks ago titled "The Responsibility Myth" that talks about this at the practical level of defining our roles and responsibilities.I am really looking forward to the comments on this question!

That's where so many companies are messing it up, Rich. Even if they themselves don't want to be on social, their employees already are. Yet they don't have a social policy... I've seen some examples already of internal social sites - British Telecom over in the U.K. now have this type of system set up. Some of the clients we speak to, we introduce to the likes of Yammer and SocialText, to improve their communications.There's a long way to go, yet, but hopefully we'll see less silos - they don't benefit anyone.

Yes. The funny thing is that while companies block employee access to social media sites, the employees are twittering and conversing on Facebook via their phones. I think there will be an interim step where companies create their own intra company social sites that they will then be able to monitor company messages being shared outside the network... what do you think?