Hot Topics

Organizational Architecture:
Work Structure vs. Reporting Structure

We may not have even given much thought to organization architecture beyond the organization chart that is in a file in our desk or hanging in the lobby of the building where we work.

Actually, organization architecture has only a partial relationship to the typical organization chart, which usually indicates reporting structure or power structure and gives no clue as to how the work is actually accomplished or how information about the work is disseminated. The architecture of an organization involves the power structure, the reporting structure, and the work structure.

Too often WORK structure is confused with REPORTING structure. The REPORTING structure of an organization can refer to the system of ACCOUNTABILITY for performance of the work to a certain standard and for the results of that performance or to the system of COMMUNICATION about the work or both. The WORK structure of an organization refers to the system of RESPONSIBILITY for doing the work and authority for making decisions about the work and the actual FLOW of the work throughout the organization.

Work structure and reporting structure must be aligned and closely integrated, though all too often this is not the case. Ideally, the work structure will be determined by the work itself rather than by the reporting structure and will be aligned with other realities about the business.

The goal of any work structure, regardless of how the reporting structure is handled, is to HORIZONTALLY INTEGRATE the work across the organization so that whole processes are being attended to rather than functions within a process. This CROSS-FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION is much more efficient, less costly, and produces higher quality results for internal and external clients and customers.

Organizations today have many options for structuring the work to achieve this horizontal integration. Which structure is right for a particular organization depends on many variables. The organization structures discussed below are named based on how the reporting structure is set up.

TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURES

Traditional organizations are more traditional in philosophy and reporting practice. They typically follow the scientific model for business and usually have hierarchical or multi-layered reporting structures, formal leadership and/or management positions with final authority on decision making. Values, vision, and strategy are usually driven from the executive level.

The term "traditional" is used for these organizations because the philosophy and practice to which they espouse has been the accepted standard for business for most of the twentieth century and some would argue for many centuries prior. The oldest practice in use among many practices is usually referred to as "the traditional way of doing things."

In these traditional organizations, maintaining command and control is usually critical to the overall functioning of the business. In such environments, achieving horizontal integration usually means changing the way the work is accomplished from vertical, functional silos to horizontal, process channels. Command and control can still be maintained by shifting the accountability of formal management from the silos to these channels. WORK GROUPS OR TEAMS with formal leadership or supervisors may be part of this channel structure as well. The quality of the products, services, or information goes up, disconnects go down, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization improves.

PARTICIPATIVE ARCHITECTURES

Many organizations today have moved away from more traditional philosophies and practices, in favor or more participative ways of doing things. Participative organizations still maintain a layered reporting structure and some command and control, though the layers are usually many fewer and the command and control is more relationship-centered than position-centered.

In participative organizations, the final authority and accountability for decisions still rests with formal managers, executives, or leaders of some kind, except in cases where the formal leaders have given this authority to a specified group or team. These formal leaders may or may not be involved with or actually doing the core work of the organization. However, those who are doing the work directly participate in decisions being made about the work.

In some cases, the accountable manager or formal leader may make decisions by consensus of all those involved or based on the desires of the majority. In other cases, she/he may take a consultative approach, gathering information from those involved or consulting with those involved and then considering this data as he/she independently makes the decision.

Horizontal integration and cross-functional work structures are often used in participative organizations because those doing the work are accustomed to being involved in decisions about the work. Even in organizations that adhere to a philosophy of participation, however, the work may be structured around functional silos rather than around process channels.

In such an organization, WORK TEAMS, each responsible for a whole process or piece of the work, are sometimes used to accomplishing this horizontal integration. However, participative organizations will frequently allow significant interaction among all members of the organization in an effort to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which problems are resolved.

COLLABORATIVE ARCHITECTURES

In a collaborative organization, rather than the work being accomplished in isolated, functional silos, it is accomplished in horizontal, process channels. Rather than using a hierarchical process of management directives and worker implementation, the work is accomplished by a horizontal process of discussion, consensus, and full integration of all those involved.

Currently, WORK TEAMS is the best vehicle for accomplishing the work in a collaborative organization. These teams are chartered with the responsibility for whole processes rather than isolated functions. The who, what, when, where, and how of these teams is determined by the values and vision, the core competencies of the organization, the nature of the work, the support require, the size and number of business units, and the particular industry and market, among other things.

In collaborative organizations, information flows freely to and from all processes, all teams, and all members of the organization, including strategic information. This free flow of information enables teams to have authority over their work and areas of expertise. All team and members are given voice to and accountability for interacting and integrating with others across the organization to accomplish the best possible results for the whole. The authority to make decisions, then, is spread throughout the organization rather than limited to a few in management positions.
All members of the organization are responsible for making decisions and accomplishing work and are accountable for the decisions they make and the results they achieve.

INTENTIONAL ARCHITECTURE

All organizational architecture should be "Intentional Architecture." This means that intentional, purposeful thought should be given to how the organization needs to be structured to best accomplish its work and clear distinctions made between the reporting structure and the work structure.

Questions? Comments? We would love to hear from you.
Drop us a line at info@lazarusconsulting.com .