Structures Keep People Together

Reading time: 15 minutes...but you will not regret

In the dynamic realm of organizations, structure emerges as a pivotal tool, binding individuals together around a shared purpose, and channeling their productivity towards achieving collective goals. The mantle of crafting and nurturing this structure rests on the shoulders of management.

However, the evolution of structure is not solely a product of structured managerial thought, designed to support the ever-transforming entity that is the company. Often, structures, once thoughtfully established, are left unchecked by their creators, lacking mechanisms to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness. This oversight can transform the structure into a constricting corset, stifling the organization's ability to breathe, move freely, be creative, or even remain healthy.

Simultaneously, managers, often unknowingly, give rise to parallel, informal structures that begin to undermine the power and function of the formal organizational framework. These unofficial structures can severely damage the organizational culture, sense of belonging, and the contributions of many valuable employees. As a consequence, employees leave the organization. Their departure and the subsequent turbulence of integrating new members further weaken the official structure, creating a cycle of decline that challenges the very core of the organization's effectiveness and vitality.

In this article, we are going to explore how organisational coherence can suffer or is impacted along 4 common organisational areas when managers are not aware of the unofficial structures they put in place inadvertently:

• Communication

• Talent Development

• Productivity

• Culture

The reader needs to be aware that, in many cases, managers do not realize the negative impact they create around themselves on the organization, on the people's morale or even on their credibility as good and thoughtful leaders.

Nor do they are aware that, in the way they are using the official structure, they are creating unofficial, parallel mini-structures that allow them to feel safe and in control. “Outside” people do see what happens, and, even if they do not realise the vulnerability of the respective manager, they would know something is not “right” or congruent with the policies and procedures rooted in the formal organisational structure.

1. Informal Information Hubs

Organizational structure creates a transparent basis for communication in the organization. Technology is implemented to enforce such transparent and official communication channels. Still, managers can and often will create parallel additional communication channels based on their personal preferences, appetite for letting themselves be visible or not, appetite for risk, and the sense of vulnerability they feel for having to rely on others or for feeling they are not enough for the job. 

Communication bottleneck

One such common unofficial structure is the reliance on certain team members as informal information hubs. In this scenario, a manager might unknowingly lean on specific individuals to disseminate information or gather feedback from the team. While this can seem efficient, it often leads to a bottleneck in communication. Key information might get diluted or altered as it passes through these informal channels, leading to misunderstandings and misalignment within the team.

In the long term, this structure can create an imbalanced workplace where certain voices are amplified while others are marginalized. It inadvertently cultivates a hierarchical communication system, where some team members feel more valued or 'in the loop' than others. This can lead to frustration and a sense of disconnection among those who are not directly involved in these informal channels.

Exclusionary Preambles

Another subtle structure is the establishment of unofficial meeting preambles. Often, a manager might start a meeting casually, discussing non-work topics with early attendees. While this seems like a harmless way to build rapport, it inadvertently creates a clique of 'insiders' who share in these pre-meeting interactions. Those who join on time or later miss out on these informal exchanges, which sometimes evolve into discussions about work-related topics.

This structure, albeit unintentional, can lead to a division within the team. Those not part of the pre-meeting discussions may feel excluded or out of the loop, especially if decisions or ideas discussed informally influence the official meeting agenda. It creates an environment where not all team members have equal access to information or opportunities to contribute, working in practice against the idea of inclusion and transparency that some companies may preach or even practice.

As you see, neither of the two examples above are in themselves wrong, nor is any the plot of any manager against any single employee. Time pressure makes many managers find “solutions” for themselves to feel productive as individuals, forgetting that an effective manager (doing the right things right) is always more performant than an efficient individual (doing things in a minimum amount of time).

In this gap of managerial behaviour, managers will choose unfortunately communication ways that require the minimum amount of time from themselves, instead of communication ways that are inclusive and fully transparent, offering chances for everyone to be heard or have a say.

But these two examples are just a mere surface scratch. In reality, examples come in a huge variety, here there are 4 more:

Other examples of unofficial structures impacting communication include:

• Favouring certain communication channels (like email over face-to-face) which might exclude less tech-savvy team members or members who perform better in direct communication than online.

• Casual corridor conversations where significant decisions are discussed informally, excluding those not physically present.

• Non-transparent decision-making processes, where some team members are consulted while others are not.

• Over-reliance on digital communication tools; might inhibit the richness of face-to-face interactions.

• Allowing dominant personalities to overshadow meetings, thereby silencing quieter team members.

I am sure that while reading you identified one or two cases when your manager did that TO YOU (even if you are a manager, too).

But how about you? What kind of structures are you creating or supporting? You may be a manager, but also you may be a specialist with certain communication preferences and certain vulnerabilities. It does not matter, you will create such structures and therefore need to be mindful of what you create and maintain.

Are you aware of the structures you inadvertently create with a potential negative impact on the morale of the people around you?

To assess it, ask yourself:

• Am I creating or allowing any unofficial channels of communication that may exclude some team members?

• How do my informal interactions with certain team members impact the overall team dynamics and communication?

• Are there any patterns in the way I share information or decisions that might be creating unintended hierarchies?

• What steps can I take to ensure a more inclusive and transparent communication structure within my team?

   

2. Unofficial Structures: Growth and Disparity

Organisational structure creates also the basis for roles and tasks definition through how work is split and controlled. Whenever in the organisation there is a need for new poles or layers of control, immediately there will be a redefinition and redistribution of tasks, both concerning execution and the control of work. Here are two examples in which managers may create unofficial structures that control task allocation.

Task Favoritism

A common, yet often unrecognized structure is the manager's tendency to delegate challenging tasks to the same high-performing individuals. Initially, this may seem like an efficient approach to ensure high-quality work. However, over time, this unofficial structure can lead to uneven professional growth opportunities within the team. The favoured individuals gain valuable experience and skill development, while others are left with less challenging, and thus less growth-inducing, tasks.

This structure - invisible to the naked eye but easy to feel in practice - not only limits the professional development of certain team members but can also lead to burnout among those constantly shouldering challenging tasks. It creates a disparity in skill levels within the team, potentially leading to resentment and a decrease in overall team morale. Managers might unintentionally stifle the growth potential of their team by not rotating responsibilities and challenges more equitably.

Selective Mentorship

Another subtle yet impactful structure is the informal mentorship that evolves in many teams. A manager might naturally offer more guidance and support to team members they resonate with personally or professionally. While mentorship is invaluable, this unofficial and selective approach can lead to a lack of mentorship opportunities for other team members. Those not receiving this informal mentorship might feel unsupported and undervalued, hindering their professional growth and engagement.

This structure can inadvertently create a divide within the team, where only a selected few receive the benefits of mentorship and the accompanying accelerated professional development. It also deprives the manager of diverse perspectives and the opportunity to nurture a well-rounded, highly-skilled team.

Other examples of how unofficial structures created by managers impact growth include:

• Informal feedback loops where only certain team members receive regular, constructive feedback.

• Unofficial 'go-to' roles where specific individuals are always approached for input or advice, neglecting the development of others' expertise.

• Unequal access to training and development resources based on perceived potential or performance.

• Allowing social cliques to dictate who gets opportunities for challenging projects or roles.

• Not recognizing and rewarding efforts and achievements equally, leading to a demotivated workforce.

Here there are four questions managers can consider to gain insight into the unofficial structures they may be perpetuating and how these work towards creating a balanced and growth-oriented environment for their team:

• Am I providing equal opportunities for challenging tasks and professional growth to all team members?

• How might my personal biases influence whom I mentor or support more within the team?

• Are there team members who might feel left out of informal learning and development opportunities?

• What steps can I take to ensure a more inclusive and equitable approach to professional development in my team?

3. Productivity Impacts: Task Disparities

In the complex tapestry of team dynamics, subtle yet impactful structures often emerge from managerial habits, shaping the productivity and harmony of the workplace. From obscured nuances of task prioritisation to overlooked biases in task delegation, these structures can significantly influence both the efficiency and morale of a team. Let’s see two such examples.

Priority Ambiguity

A frequently overlooked structure is the manager's implicit prioritization of tasks. Often, managers communicate priorities informally through offhand comments or casual mentions in meetings. This can lead to confusion among team members about which tasks are truly important. Some may perceive a project as a high priority because of an off-the-cuff remark, while others may not. This lack of clear, structured communication around priorities can lead to misaligned efforts and inefficiencies, as team members may focus their energies on different objectives.

Such an informal structure can create a work environment where productivity is hindered by uncertainty and inconsistency. Team members may waste time on tasks that are not critical, while important projects do not receive the attention they require. Moreover, this can lead to frustration and stress, as team members struggle to understand and meet the manager’s expectations.

Delegation Bias

Another subtle structure is the manager's informal approach to task delegation. In some teams, managers might delegate tasks based on who is immediately available or who they interact with most frequently, rather than who is best suited for the task. This can lead to a mismatch between an individual's skills and the tasks they are assigned, resulting in suboptimal outcomes and inefficient use of the team's capabilities.

Such lack of a structured approach to delegation can also lead to certain team members being overburdened with tasks, while others have underutilized capacity. This not only affects productivity but can also impact team morale, as it can create perceptions of unfairness and imbalance within the team.

Other similar examples affecting productivity include:

• Relying on impromptu meetings for updates, which can disrupt workflow and reduce time for focused work.

• Inconsistent application of processes and guidelines, leading to confusion and wasted effort.

• Overdependence on email for communication, which can cause delays and miscommunication.

• Lack of clear guidelines for remote work, leading to inefficiencies and communication gaps.

• Informal approach to tracking progress, resulting in lack of visibility into team performance and achievements.

So, here are some questions for you to reflect on whether you are also creating structures that impact productivity.

• How transparent and structured are my methods for communicating priorities and delegating tasks?

• Are there any informal practices in my management style that could be hindering team productivity and favouring some people over others?

• How can I ensure a more equitable distribution of tasks that aligns with individual skills and capacities?

• What steps can I implement to create clearer, more structured processes that enhance team productivity?

  By reflecting on these aspects, you can become more aware of the unofficial structures you are fostering and take steps to optimize them for better productivity and team cohesion.

4. Culture Erosion: Unofficial Norms

Policy Undermining

A common yet often unrecognized structure is the way managers handle informal discussions about company policies or decisions. When a manager casually critiques or undermines company policies in informal settings, it sends mixed messages to the team. This unofficial stance can create a subculture within the team that is at odds with the company's stated values and objectives. Team members might start to mirror this scepticism, leading to a weakened adherence to company values and a fragmented culture.

This informal structure can erode the sense of unity and purpose that comes from a strong, shared company culture. It can also lead to inconsistencies in how policies are applied and understood within the team, potentially causing confusion and a lack of alignment with the company’s broader goals and values.

Conflict Neglect

Another subtle structure relates to how managers react to and handle conflicts or issues within the team. If a manager tends to ignore or brush aside conflicts or shows favouritism in resolving them, it establishes an unofficial norm of conflict avoidance or unfair resolution. This can lead to unresolved tensions within the team and can also set a precedent that goes against the company's values of fairness, open communication, and respect.

Such a structure not only impacts the immediate team dynamics but can also ripple out to affect the broader organizational culture. It can lead to a work environment where employees feel undervalued or unheard, and where the company's core values are not effectively lived out in day-to-day interactions.

But the range of management behaviours creating sub-structures that undermine culture is diverse, and here there are 4 other examples of how structures impact company values and culture:

• The informal recognition of achievements, which may favour visibility over actual merit, affects the value of fairness.

• Casual remarks that contradict the company’s stance on diversity and inclusion, subtly influence team attitudes.

• Inconsistent enforcement of company policies leads to a culture of ambiguity and uncertainty.

• Allowing certain negative behaviours to go unchecked, which can undermine a culture of respect and integrity.

• Overlooking employee wellbeing in the pursuit of results, contradicting a culture that values its people.

In case you want to conduct an assessment on how you create and maintain structures influencing organizational culture, here there are 4 things to think of:

• Do my informal comments and actions align with the company's stated values and culture?

• How do I handle conflicts or issues within the team, and does this approach reflect the company's values?

• Are there any informal practices in my management style that might be undermining the company's culture?

• What steps can I take to ensure that my team's informal norms and behaviours are in harmony with the broader organizational culture?

By considering these points, managers can gain insights into how their unofficial actions and structures influence the company culture and values, enabling them to make more conscious efforts to align their team with the broader organizational ethos.

Conclusions

In conclusion, managers must be acutely aware of the subtle yet significant dynamics within their teams. Understanding and addressing these is key to enhancing their own performance and leadership effectiveness. Therefore they need to embark on a journey of self-reflection, delving into their internal dialogues and vulnerabilities.

It is often these personal aspects that inadvertently lead to the creation of parallel, informal structures, aimed at providing a sense of security and control. However, this can lead to unintended negative consequences, such as diminished credibility and team polarization. When team members feel excluded from these informal structures, they may disengage, believing they don't belong in an environment where they are not seen or valued.

In the corporate sphere, addressing and interacting with these structures isn't confined to those in management roles. Nonetheless, the higher one's rank, the greater the responsibility to uphold and maintain the official organizational structure without bias or distortion, and to refrain from forming unofficial sub-structures.

It takes a mature professional, manager or otherwise, to recognize their impact on the organization and to commit to self-improvement, aiming to eradicate any detrimental or redundant dynamics by which they are affecting the formal structure.

For managers seeking to elevate their leadership and foster a healthier organizational culture, coaching is an essential tool. It's a safe space for growth, self-improvement, and for developing the skills necessary to lead effectively.

Whether you're a manager grappling with the complexities of these unofficial structures or a team member facing these challenges, coaching provides an invaluable framework. It offers a space to develop strategies for moving beyond the limitations of these informal systems, thereby nurturing a more inclusive, respectful, and productive work environment.

If you are ready and open to moving forward and working on the dynamics you create and maintain, I am here to serve. Let’s get in touch and straighten those dynamics!

Alina Florea

Your Management Performance Coach

 Summary:

The article discusses how organizational structures, essential in guiding team efforts towards common goals, can become restrictive if not regularly updated. Managers often unintentionally establish parallel informal structures alongside formal ones, affecting organizational culture and employee engagement negatively.

Informal structures can disrupt communication, talent development, productivity, and culture. Examples are many, including favoritism in task delegation, selective mentorship, and reliance on informal information hubs just to name a few. These practices can create imbalances and hinder equitable professional growth within teams.

The article emphasizes the need for managers to be self-aware about the unofficial structures they create. It suggests that these structures, often a result of personal biases and management styles, can lead to disparities in team dynamics, affecting overall productivity and culture. It advocates for coaching as a tool for managers to address and improve these dynamics.