So how do you organize to the task? What does task organization look like? Task organization is dependent on the creative mind and the experience and ability of the manager. It reflects his understanding of the work at hand and is organized for opti- mal control and free-flowing communication, laterally and horizontally. For this reason the organization is flat, as opposed to hierarchical. It is not completely flat on the diagram (Figure 4), but it is when you look at it from above (Figure 5). Figures 4 and 5 are two views of the same flat (nonhierarchical) optimal organization.
The segments are rarely managed by managers, but almost always by team lea- ders. The subordinate software units are made up of one to three programmers, with a senior programmer in charge. The segment managers have an administrative assistant and senior engineer, but the senior engineer is usually the team leader.
The architecture in Figure 5 is akin to the spokes of a cartwheel leading out from the hub, which represent the manager and his support staff. What happens in this environment is that each segment and software unit has its design problems to solve within the context of the overall architecture of the system. By human nat- ure, the segments pull in the only direction they can go, away from the middle and
THE FLAT, NONHIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION 61
Figure4.Flat,nonhieraarchicalorganization—frontvie
62
Figure5.Flat,nonheirarcichalorganization—overheadview.
63
central control. This is natural and is to be encouraged by the manager, who needs to know all of the design issues, all of the time. The only way the manager gets this information is through varying the control exerted on the subordinates, and letting the arguments flow freely and constantly. This methodology is called the design hub, and it is the best arrangement for a flat organizational architecture. Individu- ally, managers, team leaders, and senior engineers have their own personalities, accompanied by a need to control, the application of which is very stressful on the manager, who is stuck in the middle of the team.
This approach, however, reduces the decision cycle on an action item or design issue to one-tenth of that required by a hierarchical organization architecture. Put in other terms, it reduces decision times from two work weeks to one day. It also ensures that the design issue or action item is fully understood by every segment team leader, software unit, and senior programmer. It is documented on the spot by the technical writers and entered into the design document, with the requirements document amended to reflect the change.
The flat organizational architecture is thus highly productive; I prefer this type of organization. However, it takes effort to control and manage; it is the organization for those managers who like to work fast, clean, and at low cost and have the energy and leadership abilities to handle this organizational architecture.
The architecture of a flat organization has some shortcomings, though. First, the manager is the focal point and makes all final decisions. This makes it stressful and takes a great deal of effort. However, if the budget is tight, it is worth it. Second, the manager resolves or mediates all conflicts between ‘‘warring factions’’ if he wants honesty and the best possible compromise or decision; he must not muzzle for mere convenience. Once a technically valid alternative is ignored or suppressed unjustly, you will no longer get honest opinions. This is detrimental to the overall system development and will cost both schedule and money.
In a flat organizational architecture, there are no ‘‘bottlenecks’’ to the free flow of organizational work in the control hierarchy, such as segment managers. In the military, the best generals and commanders in history have led from the very front lines (for example, Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, the commander of the German Africa Corps, 1940–1942). Is it a demanding task? Yes. Does it dilute the preroga- tives of subordinate commanders or managers? Yes. Does it work? Yes. Why? The person who manages or commands from the front is usually courageous, experi- enced, and accepting of responsibility should something go wrong. This manner of manager involvement or commanding from the front is the way good managers nurture, teach, and prepare future managers. They learn over and over the finer points and the mistakes made. There is always time during a break or quiet period to ask the manager or commanding officer why he made such decisions. These good commanders do give candid, unvarnished answers to valid questions during hot wash-ups in the field or the conference room. A good manager will always admit to a mistaken decision or a wrong move.
During such discussions with poor or mediocre managers, I have often heard that a particular project was very difficult and large, and that it was not the manager’s fault that it was over budget, and that the schedule for delivery was very uncertain.
This is not even an issue. It is not the difficulty of the job, but the ability of the manager that is in question. A manager gets paid to do a certain job; if he can’t, he shouldn’t be managing. I don’t want to hear how hard it is; everybody knows it is hard. It is your responsibility to get the job done. This is why the element of experience in a manager is so important. This is why you get a set of executive furniture and a large paycheck.
A flat organization is extremely demanding on the manager because the manage- ment function is at the hub, or center, of the project team. The idea that all subma- nagers and project members have their own subjective views, agendas, and druthers does not change. It only means that their direction of movement and thought, and their interpretation of the directives and orders are not necessarily identical to those of the manager. This makes them drift with great force outward and away from the hub.5In order to maintain control and optimal efficiency, the manager exerts gravity on the would-be runaway satellites. This keeps them close enough for good control and production integrity without the manager becoming a constraining factor, but not far enough to be out of range and not fit into the project design efficiently. The stress on the manager can be very great and requires what we call dynamic energy.
Without it, it doesn’t work cost-effectively.
Defining what is meant by all the terms and positions is very important for cost- effective operations. Giving away titles of ‘‘manager’’ is very dangerous, because although it may be done with good intentions, the individual appointed to such a lofty position may have subjective ideas of what it means to be a manager. It will mean many different things to many different minds. The first definition that large organizations should be made aware of is titles. ‘‘Project’’ is a very important title, also. A project is a very large task. To an organization in industry that survives by the products it manufactures, the project managers are the generals. They make or break an organization, much in the same way as poor generals lose battles, lose lives, and often lose the wars they fight. But there are many ‘‘projects’’ and many
‘‘project managers’’ that are not really anything more than task managers at most, or task leaders. Somehow, through ambition, subterfuge, and ‘‘working the scenes,’’
they have managed to reach the top.