2 Types of Organizations
There seem to be two fundamentally different types of organizations, that have two different ways of dealing with problems.
Process-focused organizations tend to look to formal processes and structures. When a problem occurs or something isn’t working as well as it could, they tend to respond by changing the process, adding more structural checks and balances, adding layers of oversight, or reorganizing groups. When things are going well, the process is seen as a success.
The upside of this is that what works can be recognized, taught, and made repeatable. In the best case, organizations can learn from their failures and create conditions that make it easy for people to succeed.
The downside is that organizations like this can come to view people as interchangeable cogs, ignore personal talent and potential, and in the worst case develop into gigantic, inflexible bureaucracies. They tend to underestimate individual differences, and put more weight on external factors (guidelines, documentation, formal processes) than on internal ones.
Person-focused organizations tend to look to individuals. When a problem occurs, they tend to respond by assigning blame, and the responsibility to fix the problem, to particular people. When things are going well, high-performing or highly visible individuals get the credit for it.
The upside of this is that talented people can be highly rewarded and make a big difference. In the best case, the organization is flexible and agile, members are much more productive without layers of red tape and approvals, and people are able to develop to the full extent of their abilities.
The downside is that individuals can be unfairly blamed or scapegoated when problems do occur; individuals that are more outgoing or who “talk big” can steal credit from quieter individuals; and in the worst case it can lead to a culture that rewards last-dash heroic effort over consistent work and good planning. These organizations may underestimate the impact that environment has on a person, and put more weight on internal factors (talent, work ethic, willingness to schmooze) than on external ones.
In my mind, the ideal case is somewhere in the middle, leaning more toward the person-focused side, but with a lightweight, flexible process that is revisited at least once a year. (I also think that the bigger your organization is, the more it tends to go toward one extreme or the other; but I don’t have any real evidence to back that up, just anecdotal observations.)
Where does your organization fall along this spectrum? Where do your personal preferences fall? Is there a mismatch between the two, and does that mismatch cause you any problems?
