Right-size structure to the work and the structure will feel supportive rather than burdensome.
The work. We all talk about it every day. But what does that mean? The work can be quite granular, like the spreadsheet needed to support a Finance team’s investigation into a budget gap, or the work can be broad, like all the work required to increase call center efficiency by 3% each of the next three years. And the work can be a mix of granular, tactical efforts and broad, strategic efforts. To design the appropriate structure, a leader must distinguish clearly between the categories of work so the right level of infrastructure and guardrails can be established.
While there are certainly many different categories of work, it is helpful to oversimplify and to think about work in two buckets: (1) work required to resolve a problem and (2) work required to advance your strategy. Asking, “what problem are we trying to solve?” is a great starting point for determining whether there is a small problem, therefore requiring lighter structure, or a big problem that may need to be broken out into a series of goals to be achieved and, therefore, requiring a more robust structure.
I have participated in awkward meetings where toward the end of a long discussion we came back around to ask, “wait, what problem are we trying to solve?” We circled back because the conversation was erratic, and we confused ourselves as we discussed approaches for completing “the work” to resolve “the problem.” The discussions were unclear, so we had different understandings about the problem and, therefore, different ideas about the work and how to go about it. Ask “what problem are we trying to solve” early and you will surely be better able to determine the complexity of the problem and the structure required to resolve it.
When you ask this question, it is important to recognize when the answer is not a singular problem to solve but rather a goal, something larger and required to advance the organization strategically. As a larger set of work may take months or even years to complete, you will need to think about the team design and infrastructure required differently. If the work is required to achieve your strategy, the challenges the team will face are likely greater and, therefore, they will need the support that comes with additional structure.
Of course, problems and goals are not conflicting ideas. For example, when communicating your direction around a goal, it can certainly be useful to describe successfully achieving the goal in part by describing the list of problems to be solved (i.e., by achieving this goal, we resolve these eight problems). That helps people clearly understand the goal and the magnitude of the work ahead. The point is not to drive complete separation in the concept of a problem to be solved and a goal, but rather to recognize the level of structure required around each is different and, therefore, address the work appropriately. One size does not fit all. Right-size the structure to the work and the structure will feel supportive rather than burdensome.
With a supportive, flexible structure in place, directing your team to do the least amount of work possible to resolve the problem or achieve the goal bound by the strategy and guardrails will help people move beyond viewing that structure as prescriptive and seeing it as an enabler. Empowering your team to utilize only the relevant components of structure required to accomplish the work avoids the pitfall of teams blindly following steps that may not add value to the work they are doing. Of course, doing the least amount of work possible has additional benefits as complexity decreases, cost decreases, speed of delivery increases, and the risk of scope creep is contained.
Share your thoughts below.
Have you ever participated in work where it felt like certain required activities weren’t necessary, that the team was following a strict prescription rather than applying only the steps necessary? How do you change that for your teams?
Leave a Reply