 "Set them free")
The concept of freedom is perhaps something not many workers would see as belonging to the company world. Work hours have to be respected, targets have to be reached and management decisions accepted. However, since the early Nineties a new wave of managers has embraced the ideology of freeing up firms.
What this means in practice is that these CEOs seek to follow an almost revolutionary management path. Their doctrine is to reduce dramatically the levels of control within their organisations, thus liberating personnel from the shackles of tight management control. This freedom will allow workers to innovate, making them feel better about their role and also their employer. Performance should improve and all involved should feel the benefits.
As far as this act of liberation is concerned, the one essential ingredient is a charismatic leader. A business boss with a certain aura is needed to convince the workforce that changes will be for the better. What such a boss must do is to gain acceptance for the logic of making the role of managers and support functions a thing of the past thus aiding growth in creative freedom.
While the concept of the liberated company is not new, the economic crisis making itself felt in many parts of the globe has brought it back to the forefront of management thinking. In short, firms can ill afford to neglect any notion that could raise profits. Added to this, the fact that many younger members of today's workforce have trouble accepting rigid hierarchies helps fuel a call for freeing employees. The principle then is that putting traditional company structures to one side firms should now recognise that all human resources available can have a role to play in creating richness within an organisation. This is especially true of those operational resources employed at the sharp end of the day-to-day business.
Such a transformation is nothing short of radical for the company concerned and is not always well-perceived or received by those it affects. The main reason is that freedom to innovate is applied to the whole workforce without a prior analysis of each person's mastership of the skills, qualities and talents required to create new ways of doing business. There is not a long way from a liberated company and a form of anarchy in which employees lose the markers that defined their jobs. In such cases freeing up a firm will create a damaging environment in which personnel suffer. When the workforce suffers, the company suffers.
The central question is, therefore, how can a firm be liberated without dramatic long-term side effects? More precisely, how can a business leader radically redefine the framework so that each employee finds the amount of freedom he or she wishes for the good for the company? When asking this question it should not be forgotten that such a redefinition needs to be carried out on two levels: individual and collective, making it more complex still.
In what may seem at first like a paradox it is while addressing this question of 'how' that the very managers and support functions who feel the most stigmatised by the liberation should play a key role. The difference is that they now become mediators or sounding boards for ideas that arrive from diverse sources. In this way, they no longer make the decisions that affect the workforce but instead ask their co-workers what they would do or say in their place. It is clear that such a shift represents a real cultural revolution.
A company's support functions and services can also have a major part to play in the accompaniment of employees. By helping colleagues to understand how to work in project groups they can introduce a new way of innovating that will filter down throughout a firm. For example, the financial services department can teach innovation groups to have economic considerations in mind when forming new projects in order to guarantee long-term success. Similarly, the human resources department needs to be at employees' sides during the transformation. Their main role is, therefore, to encourage discussion into the evolution of each employee and their relationship to their job. Central to this on-going discussion is the notion that many posts will be transformed by more responsibility. Increased responsibility brings more autonomy and unsurprisingly more expectations in terms of status, salary and career.
Asking employees to acquire new skills often very close to those of their own managers is a key part of the change to be operated, but what do personnel get in return? Even if performance levels and teamwork increase, thanks to new-found skills such as decision making and negotiation, this is not always enough to keep a workforce happy. Often new-found freedom accorded to staff will bring with it calls for higher wages and greater recognition. Few employers consider this when drawing up their plans for freeing the workforce.
Generally, companies adopt a wait-and-see approach on raising salaries in line with results. If profits do not rise, the management would appear foolish if it increased the salaries of those concerned with the project. However, such a cautious approach also risks having a negative effect on morale. This is particularly true for those who believed in the changes and committed themselves to making them work. With no real personal benefit gained from such an investment they are likely to become disillusioned.
What firms also tend to forget are the hidden costs of greater employee freedom. Ironically, these are a direct result of the liberation process. In this way, the process that is supposed to make the company more competitive can make it less so. If liberation encourages personnel to spend more time in group work then productive, operational time will be replaced by more listening, reading, questioning and discussing. The ultimate irony is that often these discussions centre on the liberation plans the firm is implementing. Talking about workforce freedom can thus make the workforce less effective.
Changing personnel's responsibilities and relationships can also damage the workplace atmosphere. Company liberation should result in more constructive contact between colleagues. However, as the process involves people it is never an exact science. Indeed, it can have almost the opposite effect. By taking part in decision-making a person can change in the eyes of those they work with. Colleagues once considered almost as friends can become more distant. Actively involving workers in innovation means asking each employee to assume his or her opinions. The danger is that workers who express opinions and help make decisions can be singled as being responsible for changes not seen as beneficial for all. Some employees may feel short-changed by proposed innovations. Members of staff can, therefore, find themselves being held accountable by disgruntled co-workers.
To limit the risk of these negative effects nothing replaces high-level preparation. Tight planning in terms of coaching and calendar is essential. Rather than simply targeting the workforce, such coaching should also be geared towards directors and managers. Boosting their relational skills and raising awareness of the eventual costs of liberation can make all the difference. In short, liberation management has to be well managed.
What this means in practice is that these CEOs seek to follow an almost revolutionary management path. Their doctrine is to reduce dramatically the levels of control within their organisations, thus liberating personnel from the shackles of tight management control. This freedom will allow workers to innovate, making them feel better about their role and also their employer. Performance should improve and all involved should feel the benefits.
As far as this act of liberation is concerned, the one essential ingredient is a charismatic leader. A business boss with a certain aura is needed to convince the workforce that changes will be for the better. What such a boss must do is to gain acceptance for the logic of making the role of managers and support functions a thing of the past thus aiding growth in creative freedom.
While the concept of the liberated company is not new, the economic crisis making itself felt in many parts of the globe has brought it back to the forefront of management thinking. In short, firms can ill afford to neglect any notion that could raise profits. Added to this, the fact that many younger members of today's workforce have trouble accepting rigid hierarchies helps fuel a call for freeing employees. The principle then is that putting traditional company structures to one side firms should now recognise that all human resources available can have a role to play in creating richness within an organisation. This is especially true of those operational resources employed at the sharp end of the day-to-day business.
Such a transformation is nothing short of radical for the company concerned and is not always well-perceived or received by those it affects. The main reason is that freedom to innovate is applied to the whole workforce without a prior analysis of each person's mastership of the skills, qualities and talents required to create new ways of doing business. There is not a long way from a liberated company and a form of anarchy in which employees lose the markers that defined their jobs. In such cases freeing up a firm will create a damaging environment in which personnel suffer. When the workforce suffers, the company suffers.
The central question is, therefore, how can a firm be liberated without dramatic long-term side effects? More precisely, how can a business leader radically redefine the framework so that each employee finds the amount of freedom he or she wishes for the good for the company? When asking this question it should not be forgotten that such a redefinition needs to be carried out on two levels: individual and collective, making it more complex still.
In what may seem at first like a paradox it is while addressing this question of 'how' that the very managers and support functions who feel the most stigmatised by the liberation should play a key role. The difference is that they now become mediators or sounding boards for ideas that arrive from diverse sources. In this way, they no longer make the decisions that affect the workforce but instead ask their co-workers what they would do or say in their place. It is clear that such a shift represents a real cultural revolution.
A company's support functions and services can also have a major part to play in the accompaniment of employees. By helping colleagues to understand how to work in project groups they can introduce a new way of innovating that will filter down throughout a firm. For example, the financial services department can teach innovation groups to have economic considerations in mind when forming new projects in order to guarantee long-term success. Similarly, the human resources department needs to be at employees' sides during the transformation. Their main role is, therefore, to encourage discussion into the evolution of each employee and their relationship to their job. Central to this on-going discussion is the notion that many posts will be transformed by more responsibility. Increased responsibility brings more autonomy and unsurprisingly more expectations in terms of status, salary and career.
Asking employees to acquire new skills often very close to those of their own managers is a key part of the change to be operated, but what do personnel get in return? Even if performance levels and teamwork increase, thanks to new-found skills such as decision making and negotiation, this is not always enough to keep a workforce happy. Often new-found freedom accorded to staff will bring with it calls for higher wages and greater recognition. Few employers consider this when drawing up their plans for freeing the workforce.
Generally, companies adopt a wait-and-see approach on raising salaries in line with results. If profits do not rise, the management would appear foolish if it increased the salaries of those concerned with the project. However, such a cautious approach also risks having a negative effect on morale. This is particularly true for those who believed in the changes and committed themselves to making them work. With no real personal benefit gained from such an investment they are likely to become disillusioned.
What firms also tend to forget are the hidden costs of greater employee freedom. Ironically, these are a direct result of the liberation process. In this way, the process that is supposed to make the company more competitive can make it less so. If liberation encourages personnel to spend more time in group work then productive, operational time will be replaced by more listening, reading, questioning and discussing. The ultimate irony is that often these discussions centre on the liberation plans the firm is implementing. Talking about workforce freedom can thus make the workforce less effective.
Changing personnel's responsibilities and relationships can also damage the workplace atmosphere. Company liberation should result in more constructive contact between colleagues. However, as the process involves people it is never an exact science. Indeed, it can have almost the opposite effect. By taking part in decision-making a person can change in the eyes of those they work with. Colleagues once considered almost as friends can become more distant. Actively involving workers in innovation means asking each employee to assume his or her opinions. The danger is that workers who express opinions and help make decisions can be singled as being responsible for changes not seen as beneficial for all. Some employees may feel short-changed by proposed innovations. Members of staff can, therefore, find themselves being held accountable by disgruntled co-workers.
To limit the risk of these negative effects nothing replaces high-level preparation. Tight planning in terms of coaching and calendar is essential. Rather than simply targeting the workforce, such coaching should also be geared towards directors and managers. Boosting their relational skills and raising awareness of the eventual costs of liberation can make all the difference. In short, liberation management has to be well managed.
Nicolas Arnaud
Associate Professor, Audencia Nantes School of Management, France
Associate Professor, Audencia Nantes School of Management, France