Innovation and advice. Although it is true, the management structure in a company bears the responsibility of taking it to the place that best resembles the purpose of the organization. But what is the purpose? One of the traditional schemes in organizations is drawn by means of a pair of inverted Maslow pyramids converging on purpose. These two figures contain in both bases, on the one hand, the shareholders’ meeting and, on the other hand, the operational structure, from one of these the board of directors and from the other the management structure. So, which of the four members of this map contains the true purpose of the company?
The idea. One of the “cliches” in these environments is the one who defends the “freedom of the director” to decide how, when and where, assuming that the disruption must come from who directs; on the other hand, the natural instinct of conservation of the shareholders assembly in which the founders of the project are regularly located, this unbeatable trench almost always houses the true DNA of the company, how much could the management undertake without this being observed as a punitive act defying the natural.
The good. The board of directors, here lies the tense calm of the equanimous, a kind of jury made up of different profiles that try to align the efforts of the shareholders with the efforts of the management structure, this council that generally travels through paved avenues and little knows how rocky the operation is, must decide on the true path, and “advise” to achieve this end.
The true. The operational structure, here there is a lack of tomorrow and a bit of reflection, a space in which the infantry lives, yes, those on foot, these combatants who sustain the two pyramids in a permanent uproar, pretending to be somewhat indifferent to what is happening in the meetings of Advice. this attitude of “survival” inadvertently deprives and makes invisible the efforts to innovate.
The desire. Choosing who will lead and take the reins of a project is in itself a paradox, from which of the areas of the organization will the new director emerge, or as in some cases it is decided to choose an outsider, someone who disrupts the organization, In this sense, who should select it, the board, the shareholders’ meeting, or will it come from the drive of the operating structure? Regardless of where the new director comes from, this will be the victory of a conservative, an act that in many cases is the best option, should everyone limit themselves to the paradigm of transformation through what is known as disruptive innovation? Of course, there are many organizations that carry in their DNA with the instinct of conservation, disrupting as little as possible, with the sole objective of transcending time, and, at this moment in the case in which the cycles of existence are shortened, perhaps time, continuing to exist is even more disruptive than transforming.