I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the pyramidal, hierarchical enterprise model no longer works, but rather that it doesn’t work well and that many people are content with it.
Many, but not all, because alternative models exist and have been adopted by a wide variety of businesses , and, let’s face it, not always with the expected success. Exchanging one dogma for another, without really understanding where it’s taking us and without wanting to compromise, only creates the opposite problems to those we want to solve, sometimes for the worse.
Indeed, this is a theme that is often approached in a quasi-philosophical way, forgetting that in the end, a philosophy is at the service of the business and not the other way round. And in our case, at the end of the day, there are people working and they need to organize and collaborate to create value, and that’s the only thing we need to worry about.
So in this article, instead of starting with the concept and working backwards, I’ve taken the problem in the other direction, starting with the expected result and working backwards to understand what was needed to achieve it.
What emerges from all this is a change not in the balance of power between the business and its employees, but in what each expects from the other and what each brings to the success of the whole… and indeed a model where we are less in the business that organizes and prescribes than in the business that makes resources available to serve the skills and capacity for innovation and initiative of its employees.
A bit like a “enterprise as a service”, where the employee consumes the company’s resources and uses them in his own way to succeed in the mission entrusted to him.
Reversing the pyramid: from authority to contribution
It’s a subject as old as time itself: in a world of ever-accelerating pace, decisions need to be taken as close to the ground as possible, for greater responsiveness and relevance. After all, people in the field are the best experts on their problems, and subsidiarity (employees are free to take initiatives as long as the manager doesn’t see fit to intervene) has proven its effectiveness.
And then there’s the underlying idea that the manager is becoming more of an organizer, someone who makes things possible and gives a collective the means to express its skills more than it commands.
We are thus moving from centralization to a collaborative network. Business no longer functions as an entity where the top decides and the bottom executes. Decisions are taken as close to the action as possible, enabling greater responsiveness and autonomy. Historically, this was a principle of industrial quality, but more recently it has been taken up in organizational theories such as holacracy and sociocracy, with, admittedly, mixed results – proof if any were needed that pure dogmatism doesn’t get you very far.
Leaders and managers therefore become catalysts for collective performance. Their primary mission is not to be at the top, but to unlock the potential of their teams. Value lies not in status, but in what we accomplish, or enable others to accomplish.
Servant leadership: the manager at the service of others
A transformation which is at the heart of reflections on the role and even the usefulness of the manager (Is manager still a profession?).
There is a reversal of roles in the service of the employee, who is in turn at the service of the customer (Can we turn the pyramid upside down without the customer?). Inspired by people like Robert Greenleaf, servant leadership places empathy, listening and support at the heart of management. The leader is no longer a hero, but a facilitator.
A posture which, in general, fosters a culture of trust and empowerment, encouraging innovation and reducing turnover.
It’s all about creating value
Behind all this must be a reflection on value creation, which, rather than a dogma or philosophy, must remain the ultimate objective of any managerial innovation approach, if it is not to be counterproductive.
By positioning itself as a service for its customers, but also and above all for its employees, the business adapts to their needs in real time, with an approach focused on experience and satisfaction.
Another consequence is that, too often seen as a hindrance , support functions become internal facilitators, freeing operational staff from unnecessary constraints and enabling them to focus on the essentials (The organizational complication: the #1 irritant of the employee experience).
This also helps to combat the unfortunate tendency – difficult to avoid if we’re not careful – for management, support functions and administration to operate almost for their own sake, and to justify their existence by forgetting their primary vocation : to serve the employee who serves the customer (Do you have a delivery model for management?).
Business must create the conditions for employee success
In fact, the idea for this post came to me froma Linkedin post by David Layani, the founder of OnePoint, who had written something interesting about his vision of the future of work.
For those who don’t have access to it, the article defends the idea that wage employment remains relevant despite predictions of its decline. While workers’ aspirations have shifted, particularly in the wake of the COVID crisis, towards greater freedom, they also seek security, framework and teamwork. David Layani proposes the idea ofa future of work based on a balance between freedom and security.
At Onepoint, this translates into concrete engagements such as allowing employees to choose their projects, working flexibly while offering modern offices, selecting their technological equipment, favoring journeys that are optimized in terms of cost, time and carbon impact, and involving employees in growth via a business mutual fund.
The tone of the article clearly reflects an underlying idea close to my heart: the role of the business and its managers is to create a context conducive to performance, and then it’s up to employees to make the best use of it.
This means creating environments conducive to performance. The business must be a place where talent can flourish and give the best of itself, which requires organizational flexibility, adapted tools and a culture that values creativity.
More than QWL, which is sometimes used as a hollow-sounding buzzword, this also suggests a focus on personal fulfillment. By supporting individual development (training, coaching, opportunities for progression), the business strengthens not only its teams, but also its own resilience.
This gives employees more power over the management of their career, their mission and their life-cycle within the business, but as great power implies great responsibility, it implies increased accountability and a tolerance of failure as long as it is formative. Creating the conditions for success also means trusting employees to innovate and take the initiative without fear of failure.
The employee is a customer like any other
At the heart of all this is the transformation of the relationship between the business and the employee, who is no longer seen as a tool or a resource, but as a customer.
I know it’s not a concept that everyone agrees with, but we’re not saying anything different when we talk about symmetry of attention or draw a parallel between the customer experience and the employee experience.
If external customers are at the heart of strategies, it’s time to consider employees as internal customers. Offering an exceptional employee experience contributes directly to engagement and performance.
It’s also about personalization and service. As with customers, employee expectations are diverse. Access to tailor-made career paths, adapted or even à la carte benefits and a motivating work environment enhance their satisfaction.
Finally, this requires a dynamic approach to the employee experience. By regularly assessing employees’ needs and satisfaction, the business can adjust to maintain a positive dynamic and implement the right initiatives to simplify their work (The future of work: complex by nature, simple by obligation).
The not-so-easy road to “enterprise as a service”
It all makes sense, and many businesses are tempted by this model, but are reluctant to take the plunge, or even fail to make the transition.
First of all, becauseit affects managerial culture and the “internal software” of managers, who have to acquire new soft skills.
Empathy, the ability to delegate and adaptability are becoming essential, and leadership development programs must reflect this evolution.
It is also important to adopt the right indicators to give meaning to the new organization. Traditional KPIs (sales, gross productivity) need to be complemented by indicators of engagement, collaboration and satisfaction.
And there’s no point in starting a revolution overnight, which will destabilize the business more than it will help it progress. We can initiate a cultural reversal through targeted pilots and experimentation with pioneering teams. One business validated its approach to hybrid work with A/B testing (One Company A/B Tested Hybrid Work. Here’s What They Found).
Bottom line
The Business as a Service is not just a managerial revolution, it’s a necessity in a world where complexity and the speed of change demand new ways of thinking.
By adopting principles such as pyramid flipping and servant leadership, organizations can not only survive, but gain in performance.
Above all, it’s an opportunity to put people and customers back at the center, to build more agile and resilient businesses.
Image: servant leadership by Elnur via Shutterstock.
Related articles:
Can we turn the pyramid upside down without the customer?
How does digital transformation look like #2 : the invisible part
Digital transformation is about making things simpler. Period.
Are the leaders of the Uber Economy here to last ?
Holacracy at Zappos : no boss or hierarchy. Really
Experience sounds nice. But what’s the value ?
