Unorganisation to improve performance
The Difference Between Unorganisation and Disorganisation
The credit for coining the word “unorganisation” normally goes to Simon David Buckingham. In 1996, Buckingham began writing about the benefits of using unorganisation to improve staff and company performance. The founder and CEO of Mobile Streams, Buckingham typically receives only marginal credit for creating this theory, which has since been embraced by some famous business commentators like Tom Peters.
A commonly used definition states that it is “an approach to organisational structure and design that consciously removes or avoids layers of management and bureaucracy.” Combined with hopes that “technological capitalism” would rule the world of business, Buckingham believed that the best way to improve company operations was to strip away all of the burgeoning layers of organisation that stifle creativity and individual/team performance.
Disorganisation represents a different condition. The dictionary defines disorganisation as “a condition in which an orderly system has been disrupted.” For obvious reasons, disorganisation is seldom productive or desired. While there are rare occasions when it has been beneficial to disrupt orderly systems (e.g., Christopher Columbus, Albert Einstein, etc.), societal and business achievement typically flourishes when standards of behavior and education are organised.
Unorganisation really implies that the more non-productive organisation layers a company eliminates results in job performance improvement. There are industries that are more attractive to the use of unorganisation than others. Conversely, some business segments appear to function more efficiently using high levels of organisation. For regulatory and operational reasons, banking, insurance and investment- related companies often function better with a structured organisational hierarchy.
Still, the difference between unorganisation and disorganisation are important distinctions that should be made. Management should seriously consider a philosophy of unorganisation when they deem it appropriate and potentially effective.
When Using Unorganisation Can Be Effective
Unorganisation, if management believes it would prove beneficial, should be implemented carefully. There is always the “implied” danger that following a plan to employ unorganisation may result in an unintended result—disorganisation. Eliminating layers of organisation, which management has decided are an impediment to job performance, without a complementary program of information, explanation and training (if necessary) for staff, might lead to an unwanted result.
A strong semblance of structure, however explained and implemented, remains a desired component of business operations – desired by employees as well as management. Structure does not equal bureaucracy. Understanding the difference is critical, particularly if management is considering following a path of unorganisation.
What industries often benefit from an unorganisation strategy? E-commerce, software development, consumer products and sales organisations can benefit from unorganisation. Employees of these industries are often creative, independent, motivated and goal-oriented. They typically have a sincere appreciation for a lack of bureaucratic levels of management that can sometimes stifle their creativity and motivation.
Stellar job performance by an employee involves a sometimes complex interaction of internal motivation, external stimulation, love of job and personal issues (family, economics, religion and health). Retaining employees with talent, education and knowledge is typically the responsibility of the Human Resource Department. Performance most often is the result of corporate culture, good management, employee and team chemistry, professional challenge and belief in job enrichment possibilities.
Properly using an unorganisation philosophy can enhance the employee experience when employees feel that their ideas, innovations, creativity, dedication, motivation and contributions are welcomed. The elimination of layers of bureaucracy also exhibits a level of management trust and confidence in staff that often spurs improved job performance. The perception of creative freedom and management confidence often serves to unlock motivation and the strong desire to perform for many employees.
There is a potential downside to using unorganisation as a management approach. There are two types of employees that might have problems, at least initially, with this program. At times experienced veterans, accustomed to the organisation chart and operational chains of command, are perplexed or unsure of how to manage this arrangement. The natural human resistance to change, combined with a different working environment, can confuse and/or irritate some workplace veterans.
Another employee group that might have issues is the younger staff members, still relatively new to the world of business operations. While many younger employees embrace unorganisation as a way to learn, grow and perform quickly, some may perceive it as retarding their development. Lacking veteran confidence, some younger staff members may long for the perceived bureaucratic structure that provides guidelines on workplace behaviour, promotion roadmaps and more management direction.
Management should consider using a program of unorganisation by evaluating its positives and possible pitfalls in light of the composition of the company workforce. Those companies that place a premium on creativity, motivation and team competition might find a policy of unorganisation to be wildly successful in improving individual and group job performance. Conversely, those business units that receive more regulation and control from third parties or are in competition with highly organised entities might find the theory of unorganisation tempting (not to mention the potential cost savings of fewer layers of middle management personnel), but should examine the process more thoroughly. Unorganisation may indeed improve job performance. If not implemented carefully, it may also result in some confusion and resistance.
Most companies have an ongoing goal of streamlining operations to produce better bottom line results. Unorganisation is another, often effective tool, to help achieve this goal. Although embraced by some well-respected business theorists, it should not be considered a miracle cure for all the operations issues that may need to be addressed. However, in combination with other business measures, unorganisation can help achieve improved job performance, particularly by those employees who value the ability to reach their objectives in a less structured administrative environment.
