The Yin-Yang of Organisational Design

The tensions framing organizational design have always intrigued me. The most obvious is the presumed trade-off between people and profit in business decisions; others include the centralized vs. decentralized choices of organizational structure or the speed vs. efficiency conundrum in scaling organizations.

As a business leader I've often struggled with dualities, extremities, and difficult choices of managing collaboration at scale. My story began as a result-oriented individual in finance. Still, after my first team management assignment, I found myself diving headfirst into the other end of the spectrum—conscious leadership, values, and organizational culture design. It was a 180-degree change in perspective, and this experience, the tension between a people-first and result-first outlook on life, has also shaped my take on organizational design.

Today, the concept of yin-yang duality is the most natural way for me to think about the tensions related to organizational design.

"Yin and yang, yinyang or yin-yang, is a concept that originated in Chinese philosophy, describing opposite but interconnected, self-perpetuating cycle. Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary forces that interact to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the assembled parts." - Wikipedia

Organizational design is a perpetual play between business strategy and organizational culture, tension between purpose and ambition, and alignment between principles and KPIs.

Our strategy is reflected in the organisation we build and the organisation we build defines the potential of our business and our outcomes.

Below, I've distilled this yin-yang duality in a sort of a map of organizational aspects a leader should consider when designing the organization:

In general terms, 

• Purpose shapes ambition and, to some extent, vice versa.
• What we prioritize shapes the strategy we follow, and the KPIs we define are the easiest way to determine the real organizational priorities.
• Decision-making follows a structure in hierarchical structures; in flat organizations, authority follows roles, not positions.
• Trust and psychological safety are essential catalysts for continuous innovation.
• From a business perspective, we have an ecosystem of products/services that shapes collaboration; from an organizational standpoint, the quality of our community ecosystem and collaboration directly impacts our products and services.
• Information is the currency of an organization, in much the same way that investment of time and money can make or break business priorities.
• The organizational equivalent of shareholders' return on investment is the aligned interests of all internal stakeholders, which ensures everyone is moving in the same direction. 

And so on.

At its core the concept of yin and yang in organisational design also carries the duality of personal traits and behaviours vs. organisational architecture. In this context any change in organisational design would require a balancing act in terms of mindset, habits and behaviours of the people involved and discrepancies result in either personal change, conflict or exit from the organisation.

I am still tinkering with it and I would love to hear your take on it.

Stay tuned for more on this concept, and remember:

"The difference between average and outstanding firms is an 'AND Mentality'. We must find and create tensions—force people into different space for thinking...This is not just a performance issue but a survival issue, because managing paradox helps foster creativity and high performance."—Paul Polman

If this is true, then the "AND mentality" that differentiates average from outstanding business leaders is quite apparent. Every leader thinks about the business and the bottom line. Only exceptional leaders invest intent, attention, and discipline in managing the organization behind the business.