It’s from a peaceful weekend in the countryside, not very far from Le Mans, at the Domaine de la Richardière¹, that I’m writing. Within a circle of acquaintances, a debate emerged. That of the calamitous state, or not, of certain large French administrations, or certain large French organizations. This was followed by a series of dialogues opposing private and public sectors: I don’t believe in this. We’ll find very beautiful organizations and disastrous organizations on both sides. But it’s certain that size and history have weight in these drifts.

What would be a “calamitous” organization, and a “virtuous” organization in my eyes.

To form an opinion, I observe three elements:

Political?

Has the organization become “political,” in the bad sense of the term. Political in the sense of Mintzberg’s model, (refer to Meetup complex enterprises), meaning where the questions, conversations, objectives are oriented inward: will I access the next level, will my project be well regarded by my peers or superiors, or collaborators, will this have an impact on my positioning, or ours, in the organization, etc. This is for me the sign of a calamitous organization. It’s an organization turned inward, on itself.

In a virtuous organization, conversations are oriented toward the organization’s purpose. For example: how could we do better next time to serve XXX, what do our users, citizens, agents expect regarding the deployment of XXX, what could we do to catch up on the subject of XXX, etc. This gaze toward what the organization exists for, this outward gaze, is the sign of a virtuous organization (not that it shouldn’t care for its collaborators, but that’s another subject, and it presents itself differently).

It’s easy to make a diagnosis: listen to what the conversations are made of.

Decision distribution, autonomy, accountability?

All decisions are centralized or decisions are deployed at the right level at each place in the organization. If no one is master of how they apply an objective, if no one decides how they implement the achievement of a target, but decisions are centralized and instructions arrive like IKEA manuals where you must apply, follow, without thinking, this is for me the sign of a calamitous organization.

If a space for decision-making on the how is left at each level of the organization concerning its level, it’s the sign of a virtuous organization.

This freedom in implementation, this autonomy, engages people, and can bring forth rich new ideas. Careful, autonomy doesn’t mean autarky, and autonomy doesn’t mean you’re not responsible, that you don’t have to be accountable.

It’s easy to make a diagnosis, just list all the decisions made in the company and see if they are centralized or deployed at the right level in the organization.

One caveat however on mechanistic organizations: where it’s the repetition of an identical gesture that brings value (Fast food chains, chains, etc.). Here it’s about repeating without thinking. In my defense, they are increasingly fewer (the complexity of the world helping), and I have little appetite for them.

Understanding of “systemics”?

More difficult to diagnose, more difficult to grasp. I try to observe in conversations if optimizations are local and focus only on the local, or if we think that everything is connected, that we take a step back and look at the whole.

Do you judge your effectiveness on a local level: this process works well, is optimized; or on the entire global chain: we deliver the expected service, the expected value, by combining all these processes, all these articulations. And understanding that certain processes should not be optimized for themselves, but for the whole. For example: this service has never worked so well, but on the other hand all the others around it suffer from this performance at their expense.

It’s not easy to diagnose. Sometimes it’s the silos of expertise that prevent seeing the whole, but it’s not guaranteed (hence however the movement from organizations structured by expertise toward organizations structured to have impacts).

Eco-responsibility

A fourth element now bursts into my judgment between calamitous or virtuous: that of eco-responsibility. Here again, it’s not so easy to judge (in certain cases). Between not realizing, not feeling concerned, being aware, trying, succeeding, pretending, limiting the damage, repairing, growing, there are many scenarios.

To diagnose it, perhaps we must start by establishing a triple accounting: financial, human (social), and eco-responsible (nature) (see the previous article).

To conclude

Are you a political organization? Where decisions are made at the right level? Where everyone optimizes their own patch of land? Or are you an organization oriented toward its reason for being? Where decisions are deployed at the right level with autonomy and accountability? Where we understand that everything is connected in our action?