What does it take not only to launch a company but also to run it successfully? Among the many aspects that play a role, one interests me in particular: how people organize themselves or, conversely, how they fail to do so. This often leads to people making life difficult for themselves and each other but it can also lead to achieving great things. This is something you can observe everywhere, including in our own company.
Since 2015, pentacor GmbH has been in existence, and in the "tricky 7th year," I had the impression that we had hit a snag. Gradually, it became clear that we were having difficulties with the distribution of responsibilities. Despite our values, we were not managing to distribute responsibility in a healthy way. Instead, it was overwhelmingly concentrated on a few shoulders.
In addition to short-term measures that contributed to improvements, we have had a working group since then dedicated to paving the way for our organization’s healthy and appropriate development. From the beginning, I have been an active part of this group. Despite all the enthusiasm and motivation I bring and all the good intentions, I repeatedly experience moments of frustration and setbacks. Organizational development is incredibly challenging. Here, the fear of change clashes with the desire for it. The ideas of the “New Work” world rub against the possibilities of reality. Everyone is affected and, consequently, everyone has a personal opinion.
But ever since I found an answer to the question"Why is this so exhausting?", it has become a challenge that I face with passion. The theoretical framework that provided me with more clarity is something I would like to share with you here.
If we compare organizational structures that featureformal hierarchies with self-organized teams or companies, we could view themas poles on a common scale. At the left end, we find traditional organizational forms with clear vertical structures and processes, where responsibility is carried by formally appointed leaders. At the other end stands the so-called"new world of work," where the aforementioned structures largely disappear.
The right pole, self-organization, is often discussed and idealized in numerous media outlets. Its placement on the right side of the described axis implicitly suggests—corresponding to our common reading direction from left to right—that this should be the most desirable organizational form. However, it is by no means true that the world of classical, formal hierarchy is inherently negative, unfriendly to people, or a barrier to success.
From the perspective of many people, such systems offer significant advantages: not everyone wants to deeply contemplate the company they work for, make decisions collectively, and share in responsibilities. Formal hierarchies provide clarity, security, and reliable boundaries that people can follow. One can also envision an ideal utopia here—one where leadership positions are filled with well-meaning and capable individuals, who have the loyalty of their employees. This is precisely what effective self-organization aims for as well, which also cannot function without leadership and hierarchy. The difference is that leaders are not appointed "from above".
The key to successful companies, regardless of their position on the organizational scale, is ultimately the optimal distribution of leadership and responsibility.
Self-organized organizations face the challenge that individuals within them must be capable of allowing hierarchies to naturally emerge. This means taking turns and leading based on competence. A realistic assessment of one's own competencies and those of others in the team is of fundamental importance. Who can take the lead on which issue? Who can make decisions? Who can take responsibility? But that's not all—everyone should also have a good awareness of their own inner world, personal drives, and mechanisms of their ego. Additionally, strong competencies in communication and interpersonal skills are equally crucial. In short, it requires the inner growth of individuals, as this kind of self-development is not automatic. The traditional school and university programs often have significant gaps in preparing individuals for these challenges.
Let's summarize these insights into two additional poles that we can overlay as a vertical scale on top of the ones mentioned earlier. At the lower end, there is a secure structure in the external world, meaning clear vertical structures and processes within the organization. At the upper end, there are many secure inner worlds, meaning individuals with a very high degree of self-responsibility and interpersonal competence.
Functioning formal hierarchies rely on strong organizational constructs that provide individuals with security and accountability.
Functioning natural hierarchies rely on the inner growth of individuals, where organizational constructs are seen as more hindering than necessary.
Therefore, the transition between these poles cannot happen abruptly overnight; it is a transformative process where one gradually moves from one world to another.
The path of healthy transformation can be likened to a corridor. The more inner security there is, the more can be dismantled externally. Or in other words, if we want to become more self-organized, we need to grow internally. Do we have to?
We want to.
Because inner growth cannot be commanded, and it is at this exact point where many things go wrong. The promises of the tools and methods of the beautiful "new world of work" remain unfulfilled, if they do not align with the competencies and mindset of the individuals, who are using them.
Anyone who, like us, endeavors to operate as a more self-organized and successful company will share this logic from their own experience, even if they haven't yet considered the theoretical connections.
Whenever we deviate from the corridor of healthy transformation, stress arises. If organisational constructs are dismantled or missing without the individuals having completed the necessary inner growth, this is compensated for - in an unhealthy way. Informal structures arise, e.g. because responsibility is concentrated on those who cannot say no, or leadership is assumed by those who act in the most dominant way. And conversely, the potential of individuals and synergies of collaboration are stifled when they are constricted by the corset of strong, organisational constructs.
As a company, we have gained extensive experience in balancing an organizational structure that suits us while also expanding our team. It has been a sometimes exhausting and demanding process—for everyone involved. Through engaging with this model, I've come to realize that this is perfectly normal. Beyond the "ideal," things get uncomfortable—that's just how it is with people. And "ideal" isn't an achievable goal but an ongoing journey towards utopia.
Engaging with this schematic representation has been very therapeutic and has helped us gain a better mutual understanding of both the company's perspective and that of individuals. It allowed us to ask ourselves: where are we now? And where do we want to go? It became clear to us that our goal is not blindly pursuing self-organization but rather achieving the optimal distribution of leadership and responsibility. We aim to find our position on these scales that aligns with us best, regardless of whether it's on the far right or left, top or bottom.
It takes patience and an awareness of the growth level of individuals within the company, especially one's own. If the goal is to achieve more self-organization in the company, it's important to invite people to develop from where they currently are and not push them further than they are willing to go. The most fantastic methods and tools become ineffective, if they overwhelm or underwhelm the employees. This creates stress and resistance during the transformation process.
Once you (I) understand this, you can engage in organizational development with renewed vigor and wholehearted commitment.
In one of my upcoming blog articles, we could perhaps discuss what exactly this inner growth of personalities entails, considering that we are all "adults" after all—aren't we?
