Agility is the Key
Size Does Matter (but not in the way you may think)
How many employees or staff do you have? This is the question I am most often asked before any other query.
Some people seem far less interested in who I am, what I do, how I do it or what impact I have. I have tried to work out what question they are really asking or what they really want to know. Is this question a more polite way of gauging company turnover? Influence? Is this the only question they have?
It might be more a function of the people I encounter, and you may have already formed a view about this. However, there remains value in stating the obvious. Size does matter but perhaps for not the reason you think.
We openly accept the need to be adaptable, flexible, nimble and responsive in everything from leadership, customer service through to embracing the digital future. We actively use (and perhaps even over use) words like networked, agile, virtual and ‘on the go’. However when it comes to organisations, we continue to measure success in terms of traditional bricks and mortar measures, formal structures and employee numbers despite knowing these things can often inhibit sustainable growth, productivity, profitability and agility.
This illustrates an obvious conflict between what is needed and how success is measured. The bigger issue is that there is a disconnect between how we manage risk and how innovative outcomes are achieved. While we may say we embrace innovation, our actions demonstrate a greater appetite for not engaging with risk.
The challenges facing organisations are complex, needing resolution in increasingly shorter timeframes. Yes, organisations need to be adaptable, flexible, nimble and responsive, and they also need like contributions from others. More than ever before, emphasis needs to be placed on partnering, collaborating and networking. There are examples of large and small organisations succeeding in this regard but the challenge for medium and large organisations to engage an ever-diminishing talent pool is real, particularly when not everyone working under your ‘banner’ needs to be, or wants to be, employed or engaged in the traditional way.
For decades, we have been talking about the need for multi-disciplinary teams and sadly, it remains poorly executed. How well often depends upon the diversity of skills available in a given organisation. Rarely do we look beyond what we have. We tend to convince ourselves that we can be all things to all people. The consulting sector in particular is very expert at presenting its in-house teams as sufficiently diverse and multi-disciplinary to meet (seemingly any and every) client need.
Having many years of experience engaging consultants for major transformation projects and almost as many years as a consultant working in such projects, I know first hand the significant challenge to have a ready supply of individuals for redeployment to multi-disciplinary teams. The financial viability, opportunity cost and availability of talent are a few of the challenges.
So what is the alternative? Partnered, collaborated and networked arrangements that form, reshape and disband as the need arises. Size does matter and in this case; small provides the greatest opportunity.
The small end of the consulting sector is very good at this. Digital start-ups are excellent at it. The approach also offers benefits for traditional organisations. However, it requires a significant paradigm shift starting with how the problem is shaped through to the contractual arrangements adopted and how success is measured.