How Many Organisations are Old-Fashioned. Why You May Have to Shift to The Modern and Future Organisation? Is Your Organisation Already Mor

More than 80 percent of the organisations around the world are old-fashioned in their design, structure, operating theory, leadership, management, job descriptions, processes, systems-almost everything. This is why underperformance is the default state of organisations. Underperformance is different from poor performance. Underperformance means that the organisations have ubiquitous human potential that is being wasted because of strategic underperformance. Poor performance means poor or bad results due to inherent lack of the right level of potential to produce better results. Organisations often talk about poor performance and they are wrong; few organisations perform poorly; they simply underperformance; they underutilise the mental capital within their organisations. This whole notion of talent shortage is a hoax. There is no shortage of talent in organisations; there is lack of understanding of what really talent is; how to identify it within individuals and how to deploy it and convert it into value. This is the Acres of Diamonds story at play wherein Ali Hafed abandoned his own farm and embarked on a long journey in search of mythical diamonds only to learn that a huge diamond field was discovered on the very same farm he had sold and abandoned to search for diamonds heaven knows where. In this case, Ali Hafedism is very common in today’s organisations.

Let me repeat. More than 80 percent of organisations are old fashioned. I am not a fan of history and I used to despise history as a useless subject but when it comes to understanding knowledge and organisations, history is key. Understanding the origins of things in terms of organisations, knowledge disciplines and methods helps to provide a reference point because in a very creative world of ideas, things go haywire and people can deviate from the original that worked or they can remain stuck to what no longer works. The history of organisations, especially the corporate organisation, is a typical case.

You may already know that in the beginning of the corporate organisation there was the board and the board members who were in charge of the organisation right to the operational level. The board chair was the ultimate decision maker together with the board members. There was no chief executive officer; no top executive team or top management team. The title “board” came from the fact that the people in charge of the organisation had their meetings around a flat board on stands; there were no tables the way we know them. So those who were selected or nominated to be part of this group of top men and women were called board members. The term board chairman came from the fact that only the leader of this group of people sat on a chair while the rest of the team sat on stools. The same traditional terms board, board chairperson and board members remains to this day, although the roles and responsibilities of the board have changed and vary from one jurisdiction to the other around the world. The other difference is that unlike in the past, these people no longer sit around a board and on stools but around a table and on chairs. Most also now have a special room they still call a boardroom even there is no longer a board there but a proper table.

Now, due to various reasons, the board generally backed off from the day to day running of the organisation. One of the major reasons for these was that founders of the organisations often became the board chairperson and this compromised sober decision-making. So at some point in history, a decision emerged to distance the board team from the day to day operations of the organisation. This created the need for someone whose job was to ensure the effective day to running of the organisation in implementing the decision of the board. Now in these days, bear in mind, the board was responsible for the strategy and the overall decisions. So the person in charge of implementing the board strategy and plans was called the chief executive officer. The title is instructive; the chief executive was responsible for the execution of a plan developed by the board and for implementing the board decisions. In other words;

The chief executive officer had not much role, if at all, in strategy, decision and overall planning but in implementation of the strategy and plan.

So much has changed in organisations through time. In many organisational jurisdictions, boards are no longer responsible for strategy formulation; they mainly oversee the organisations and ensure that the organisation has a sound strategy, plan and direction. They also ensure that corporate governance is sound and that the organisation is managing its risks in a proper way. The Chief Executive Officer and her top management team are responsible for the strategy and the day to day operation of the organisation.

From this sense, the term “chief executive officer” is now obsolete in cases where the chief executive officer is in charge of the strategy of the organisation. You may be asking;

“What’s in a title?”

In formal institutions title matter. Titles matter even in general life. Titles remind the title holders of their mandate and their job. They bring mental focus. Wrong titles can lead the title holders to think in a wrong way. Calling someone who must be responsible for strategy or results “chief executive officer” is misleading. It does not help the title holder much because it is directing the title holder in the direction of execution and not strategy.

Organisational Structures

Many organisations are still using the old-fashioned pyramidal organisational structures with titles that have little relation to the key result areas of the different functions or “departments”. These entities never structure of their organisations strategically but rather mostly use a template-based copycat approach. The pyramidal organisations that assumes that leadership and strategy are at the top, management in the middle and operators at the bottom is now obsolete. It is not the most effective way of structuring an organisation in the 21st century. The old theory of top down, regimental organisation, is no longer the cutting edge; it severely undermines high organisational performance or optimum performance.

I am calling for either the massive upgrade or a complete overhaul of the organisation and even a complete phase out of the old organisation and replace it with a completely new organisation based on modern theory. Everything about more than 80 percent of the today’s organisations needs either a massive upgrade, complete overhaul or total replacement.

The pyramidal organisational structure built on old-fashioned functions and old titles must be replaced with a completely different structure and most organisational titles must be modified or even abolished. Today is miles away from yesterday and the future is radically different from today. We must review the design and structuring of organisations and eliminate all features from the past that are no longer working and are obsolete. This is time for the de-dinosaurisation of the our organisations. Say no to old-fashioned organisations. Say “yes” to the modern, more efficient organisations that are high performance results machines run by high-achieving, peak-performing, well-led, well-trained, well-educated, well-developed, potential-unlocked, strategic results warriors.

[email protected] +263-77-44-74-38

?Simon Bere, 2023