There has been much discussion and rumination on the how a perfect organization should be structured. We have observed numerous examples of successful and deficient corporations and how their organizational structures contribute to both pathways, but when one must declare how the ideal organization should be designed one must first define what exactly an ideal organization is, and the qualities that are required. First, all the flourishing organizations we examined displayed a strong sense of shared purpose that was pervasive from the CEO to the front-line employees, leading those within the organization to believe in why and what they do to the deepest levels of their minds and to the higher levels of their needs hierarchies. Secondly, the organization must operate on “the edge of chaos” without the burden of “external sanctions” basically meaning that they cannot handcuff themselves to quarterly earnings or short-run sales goals, that the organization and its leaders must be focused instead on the long-run sustainability of their company. By no means are these two aspects an exhaustive list of what an organization needs to be successful but in a sense if people know what they are fighting for, and believe that it is worth fighting for they will always fight until they win, and often what is worth fighting for is not popular by any means nor is it ever easy. Even if these two aspects are met an organization may still falter if not structured properly to allow for maximum adaptability and continual learning, and therefore may fail.
Granted that these underlying qualities are met (especially in an organizations’ leadership) how then does one arrange their personnel to best achieve their purpose? The solution is simple and elegant, inspired by the authors’ main experiences in observing our natural world and on the athletic field. Instead of Executive Vice Presidents, or Heads of Divisions, there should be Co-Captains leading teams in tandem, providing a sense of balance in leadership to their departments and also providing dual feedback to their CEO, all enabling the company to function like a productive ecosystem, and a gracefully structured human body, and an exciting championship baseball team (Please refer to the attached diagram). This theory is in contrast to the individual spirit of accomplishment and burden we love here in the United States, but as stated before our organization requires those who populate it to be committed to the shared purpose, individual pursuits and selfish scheming have no place in the ideal organization and a CEO willing to institute the co-captain theory must not fear letting those whose commitment is shallow and egocentric find their place somewhere else.
So once the “right people are on the bus” how does one pair individuals in order to best utilize the co-captain theory? Well, since balance is a key goal of the theory one must carefully choose individuals that have different and complementing strengths and weaknesses. For example a choosing one captain that has a more risky business philosophy and pairing that individual with another that has a more conservative business philosophy. Or one whose greatest strength is their ability to communicate effectively while the others’ strength lies in numerical analysis. Rarely are there singular individuals who strengths are so wide and diverse that they do not need input and assistance from outside sources. And even if they don’t, such individuals are usually intelligent enough to realize that listening to all ideas only make one stronger. These co-captain pairs must be chosen carefully, therefore the CEO must directly observe individuals that they would consider candidates for the posts, and they must gather evidence from the candidates’ subordinates. The CEO must use their foresight to envision how a possible partnership would function. It is not necessary for these partnerships to be all sunshine and roses either, the co-captains must be able to constructively criticize each other without behaving defensively or immaturely, and their behaviors should always function to serve the organizations’ purpose. In this aspect the CEO must have zero tolerance otherwise the co-captain theory will not function properly. Meaning that if a captain the CEO assigned is behaving out of purpose that person must lose their position of authority immediately, at least temporarily, and if through this removal that individual does not recognize and amend their behavior then it is revealed that being a co-captain of their division is not in their interest nor in the best interest of the organization. Choosing the proper individuals for each co-captain position is a crucial beginning step, following the gathering of information, and the next one is for each individual and each co-captain team to understand and occupy their niche to perfection.
In an ecosystem when one describes a niche it refers to the environmental factors that influence the growth, survival, and reproduction of a species, it is not just a physical location of a certain organism or that organisms’ function and behaviors within that system. The niche an organism occupies is a result of their own morphology, as well as their morphology being a result of the niche they occupy. In a business organization it is recognizing that the decisions one makes are a result of functions of their division, and that the functions of their division are a result of their decisions. The size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s Finches on the Galapagos Island are a result of the niche they occupy and they continue to occupy that niche because of the shapes of their beaks. Once one understands the reciprocal nature of a niche, then each co-captain can begin to better occupy that role. So each partnership must be aware of, comprehend, and be able to empathize with each other. Then when able to function properly in their niche (as individuals and a co-captain team) they can provide their influence on the system as best suited to the niche they occupy. Therefore it is not just the CEO’s responsibility to build functional teams, the co-captain teams themselves must identify and adapt to their environmental factors to maximize the growth, survival, and reproduction of their division.
Each co-captain will have different responsibilities in their niche operating ideally on opposite sides of feedback loops. Referring to the purpose of each co-captain should be ideally suited to governing either a reinforcing (or positive) feedback loop or a balancing (or negative) feedback loop. Obviously one’s personality and philosophy will reveal a penchant for governing one or the other and that individual should be assigned to that task. Though it is crucial for again for both individuals to understand and respect the others’ assignment as their niche cannot be occupied properly without the dual functioning. Arranging one’s organization to crux upon feedback loops will enable expedient changes of the revolutionary kind, and will also enable the small micro changes needed to correct volatile changes, both bringing the organization along their path of shared purpose and toward homeostasis. It is crucial to remember in a system which functions properly with positive and negative feedback loops input from both is constant, small adjustments are constantly being made from both sides. The co-captains must also not only provide proper input into the system below them but feedback in the co-captain system must travel upward as well. For the CEO is the like the brain which to function properly needs constant feedback from the body in order for it to make proper decisions to help the body survive, grow, and reproduce. Therefore the CEO must seek feedback from BOTH captains to acquire information, and must examine information both positive and negative (not related to the reinforcing or balancing feedback loops). And the organization that utilizes these loops of control, and information will be able to achieve that sustainable productivity and profitability.
Perhaps the co-captain theory is best explained through metaphor. Imagine your organization as a car, and the CEO is the brain of the driver, and the co-captains are the driver’s hands, one for the right and one for the left. Established is the fact that if the road is straight, and the car easily manageable, you may not need more than one hand, or no hands if you’re good with your knees, to keep the car between the lines. But rarely in the business world is the road straight and the car easily manageable. Most organizations are like an eighteen-wheeler, and most industries resemble Mt. Rose Highway. If you picture yourself driving an eighteen-wheeler up Mt. Rose, wouldn’t you want both hands on the steering wheel? Wouldn’t you want to be able to really crank it when you needed to get around a fifteen mph turn? Or wouldn’t you like to make those small corrections when a gust of wind causes your trailer to shimmy on a straightaway? Making it safely over the summit simply requires two hands working together. And an organization functioning smoothly requires the intelligent design of two individuals sharing responsibility for each department. Though the co-captain theory betrays the spirit of
Individualistic accomplishment we are so married to in this nation, it is something to be considered by those who wish their organization to function in the consistently shifting and incredibly competitive global business markets of the future.
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON IMPLEMENTING THE CO-CAPTAIN THEORY
· Co-Captains need not only exist at the top of the organization, one should disseminate co-leadership as far as possible. So if need be there should be Regional Co-Captains, then Area Co-Captains, then Local Co-Captains and so on.
· Co-captains should never directly govern teams larger than say 10 individuals. Example being Regional Co-Captains should govern a team of 10 Area Co-Captains, and each team of Area Co-Captains should govern a team of 10 Local Co-Captains.
· The Law of Rotation – Changes in those that occupy Co-Captain positions are encouraged. They should occur probably every few years, or upon request of the Co-Captain, to allow for fresh ideas to emerge
· Co-Captains – should be encouraged to run experiments, gain evidence, for possible changes in their division or to test the effectiveness of their feedback loops at generating the desired results.
Granted that these underlying qualities are met (especially in an organizations’ leadership) how then does one arrange their personnel to best achieve their purpose? The solution is simple and elegant, inspired by the authors’ main experiences in observing our natural world and on the athletic field. Instead of Executive Vice Presidents, or Heads of Divisions, there should be Co-Captains leading teams in tandem, providing a sense of balance in leadership to their departments and also providing dual feedback to their CEO, all enabling the company to function like a productive ecosystem, and a gracefully structured human body, and an exciting championship baseball team (Please refer to the attached diagram). This theory is in contrast to the individual spirit of accomplishment and burden we love here in the United States, but as stated before our organization requires those who populate it to be committed to the shared purpose, individual pursuits and selfish scheming have no place in the ideal organization and a CEO willing to institute the co-captain theory must not fear letting those whose commitment is shallow and egocentric find their place somewhere else.
So once the “right people are on the bus” how does one pair individuals in order to best utilize the co-captain theory? Well, since balance is a key goal of the theory one must carefully choose individuals that have different and complementing strengths and weaknesses. For example a choosing one captain that has a more risky business philosophy and pairing that individual with another that has a more conservative business philosophy. Or one whose greatest strength is their ability to communicate effectively while the others’ strength lies in numerical analysis. Rarely are there singular individuals who strengths are so wide and diverse that they do not need input and assistance from outside sources. And even if they don’t, such individuals are usually intelligent enough to realize that listening to all ideas only make one stronger. These co-captain pairs must be chosen carefully, therefore the CEO must directly observe individuals that they would consider candidates for the posts, and they must gather evidence from the candidates’ subordinates. The CEO must use their foresight to envision how a possible partnership would function. It is not necessary for these partnerships to be all sunshine and roses either, the co-captains must be able to constructively criticize each other without behaving defensively or immaturely, and their behaviors should always function to serve the organizations’ purpose. In this aspect the CEO must have zero tolerance otherwise the co-captain theory will not function properly. Meaning that if a captain the CEO assigned is behaving out of purpose that person must lose their position of authority immediately, at least temporarily, and if through this removal that individual does not recognize and amend their behavior then it is revealed that being a co-captain of their division is not in their interest nor in the best interest of the organization. Choosing the proper individuals for each co-captain position is a crucial beginning step, following the gathering of information, and the next one is for each individual and each co-captain team to understand and occupy their niche to perfection.
In an ecosystem when one describes a niche it refers to the environmental factors that influence the growth, survival, and reproduction of a species, it is not just a physical location of a certain organism or that organisms’ function and behaviors within that system. The niche an organism occupies is a result of their own morphology, as well as their morphology being a result of the niche they occupy. In a business organization it is recognizing that the decisions one makes are a result of functions of their division, and that the functions of their division are a result of their decisions. The size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s Finches on the Galapagos Island are a result of the niche they occupy and they continue to occupy that niche because of the shapes of their beaks. Once one understands the reciprocal nature of a niche, then each co-captain can begin to better occupy that role. So each partnership must be aware of, comprehend, and be able to empathize with each other. Then when able to function properly in their niche (as individuals and a co-captain team) they can provide their influence on the system as best suited to the niche they occupy. Therefore it is not just the CEO’s responsibility to build functional teams, the co-captain teams themselves must identify and adapt to their environmental factors to maximize the growth, survival, and reproduction of their division.
Each co-captain will have different responsibilities in their niche operating ideally on opposite sides of feedback loops. Referring to the purpose of each co-captain should be ideally suited to governing either a reinforcing (or positive) feedback loop or a balancing (or negative) feedback loop. Obviously one’s personality and philosophy will reveal a penchant for governing one or the other and that individual should be assigned to that task. Though it is crucial for again for both individuals to understand and respect the others’ assignment as their niche cannot be occupied properly without the dual functioning. Arranging one’s organization to crux upon feedback loops will enable expedient changes of the revolutionary kind, and will also enable the small micro changes needed to correct volatile changes, both bringing the organization along their path of shared purpose and toward homeostasis. It is crucial to remember in a system which functions properly with positive and negative feedback loops input from both is constant, small adjustments are constantly being made from both sides. The co-captains must also not only provide proper input into the system below them but feedback in the co-captain system must travel upward as well. For the CEO is the like the brain which to function properly needs constant feedback from the body in order for it to make proper decisions to help the body survive, grow, and reproduce. Therefore the CEO must seek feedback from BOTH captains to acquire information, and must examine information both positive and negative (not related to the reinforcing or balancing feedback loops). And the organization that utilizes these loops of control, and information will be able to achieve that sustainable productivity and profitability.
Perhaps the co-captain theory is best explained through metaphor. Imagine your organization as a car, and the CEO is the brain of the driver, and the co-captains are the driver’s hands, one for the right and one for the left. Established is the fact that if the road is straight, and the car easily manageable, you may not need more than one hand, or no hands if you’re good with your knees, to keep the car between the lines. But rarely in the business world is the road straight and the car easily manageable. Most organizations are like an eighteen-wheeler, and most industries resemble Mt. Rose Highway. If you picture yourself driving an eighteen-wheeler up Mt. Rose, wouldn’t you want both hands on the steering wheel? Wouldn’t you want to be able to really crank it when you needed to get around a fifteen mph turn? Or wouldn’t you like to make those small corrections when a gust of wind causes your trailer to shimmy on a straightaway? Making it safely over the summit simply requires two hands working together. And an organization functioning smoothly requires the intelligent design of two individuals sharing responsibility for each department. Though the co-captain theory betrays the spirit of
Individualistic accomplishment we are so married to in this nation, it is something to be considered by those who wish their organization to function in the consistently shifting and incredibly competitive global business markets of the future.
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON IMPLEMENTING THE CO-CAPTAIN THEORY
· Co-Captains need not only exist at the top of the organization, one should disseminate co-leadership as far as possible. So if need be there should be Regional Co-Captains, then Area Co-Captains, then Local Co-Captains and so on.
· Co-captains should never directly govern teams larger than say 10 individuals. Example being Regional Co-Captains should govern a team of 10 Area Co-Captains, and each team of Area Co-Captains should govern a team of 10 Local Co-Captains.
· The Law of Rotation – Changes in those that occupy Co-Captain positions are encouraged. They should occur probably every few years, or upon request of the Co-Captain, to allow for fresh ideas to emerge
· Co-Captains – should be encouraged to run experiments, gain evidence, for possible changes in their division or to test the effectiveness of their feedback loops at generating the desired results.
No comments:
Post a Comment