In the era of disruption, even the most established and recognizable brands have a tenuous relationship with success. More than ever before, consumers are holding corporations responsible for the impact they have on the world, whether positive or negative. Not long ago, shareholder earnings were the primary concern of corporate leaders. Nowadays, however, profits often take a backseat to societal demands.
While this shift is occurring, an equivalent evolution is taking place among leaders. Faced with these new pressures, organizational leaders must make important changes to bring their business in line with shifting expectations. Such pivots have helped to expand the role of these organizations within the larger community as efforts to drive profits align with social responsibility. Organizations that focus on adapting and changing are more likely to have impressive returns on investment in the years to come.
From Hierarchy to Flat Structures Emphasizing Autonomy
Traditionally, companies have adhered to hierarchical structures where the role of the leader resembled that of a director, issuing directives and communicating expectations across various levels of the organization. By and large, this structure silences people at the lower levels, which is unfortunate because entry-level positions are often filled by young people with different backgrounds, which means they think about problems differently and can push for novel solutions. However, this only happens when they have the opportunity to contribute. Moreover, the hierarchical structure wastes the skills of leaders by turning them into glorified messengers. With a flat structure, leaders have a much more important role: empowering people to take ownership of their work and fostering unique, collaborative connections.
Flat structures are certainly much more complicated than hierarchical ones even if it does not appear so on the surface. These structures consist of independent teams collaborating with each other and occasionally on projects. Such a system only works when there is trust and respect among the team members themselves, as well as between leadership and these teams. This means walking the line between transparency, sharing enough with other teams, and secrecy, ensuring that exciting ideas do not find their way to competitors and sometimes to other teams within the organization. Maintaining trust can be tricky in this environment, and leaders have an important role to play in modeling behaviors and setting tone.
From Perfection to a State of Constant Evolution and Progress
Companies used to adopt a mindset that involved dedicating months, if not years, to product development in the pursuit of creating a flawless product that would establish market dominance. With the rate of today’s technological evolution, this idea has become outdated. Nevertheless, despite advancements in organizational management, certain leaders persist in adopting an approach that involves excessive control over their organization’s' work, including micromanaging the development process and dictating the final product that is released.
In the modern market, it makes more sense to embrace short cycles of decision, implementation, and learning. By looking at the outcomes, incremental changes can be made to move closer to the desired outcomes. In this environment, micromanagement is impossible since several cycles are usually occurring at the same time.
Rather than simply being managers, leaders should strive to become effective coaches who empower and guide their employees. As coaches, they should train their team members how to navigate risks while engaging in meaningful experiments that generate valuable data for future endeavors. This means creating an environment tolerant of calculated risks yet intolerant of unreasoned experiments. Even failures teach important lessons for the future provided that the experiment was set up in the right way. Iterative learning and small changes over time are what lead to better products. In reality, the perfect product will never exist because it becomes obsolete almost immediately.
From Competition to Collaboration and Co-creation
In the past, the thought of joining forces with a competitor would have been laughed at, but the co-creation model has led to some of the most creative products on the market—and ones that would not have been possible by companies working alone. To be fair, co-creation is risky because companies, especially those in the tech field, do not like sharing secrets. However, with evolving cultural dynamics, there is a growing emphasis on collaboration. This shift is particularly evident as companies become more specialized. As specialization increases, organizations recognize the need to forge alliances and join forces to successfully bring certain products to market.
Leaders will play a key role in normalizing this type of collaboration. After all, leaders have historically driven competition, so it will be their responsibility to set a new tone and demonstrate how to work together toward a mutually beneficial goal. To a certain extent, leaders must transition into strategic architects, envisioning and assembling teams that align with future collaborative projects. This involves identifying individuals with co-creation expertise who can provide valuable guidance to the projects and pairing them with highly skilled experts who will spearhead the development process. By adopting this approach, leaders can foster effective teamwork and ensure the successful realization of their long-term objectives.
