Is de-layering important to boost efficiency?

There’s a lot of discussion going about de-layering in organizations. The hypothesis is that it will up the efficiency of its people.

But if efficiency is the litmus test of a successful venture then as a concept it may be clouded with too many ambiguities.

Efficiency in output versus efficiency in process are 2 different concepts and often confused for one another. A dozen people may hammer a nail in the wall perfectly well. But the situation begets the question – was it efficient people at work or was there efficiency in the execution of work? One also needs to think about the outcome rather than just output efficiency. It’s important that quality is not jeopardized in the process.

Having too many “efficient” people does not necessarily make an organization efficient. One hears of organizations employing students only from certain grad schools to project an image of a company run by efficient people.

Efficiency is always with respect to the task. Nothing more. Nothing less. For instance, if you need to change a light bulb, you do not require the efficiency of an electrical engineer.

So what is efficiency? And how do you recognize it? Can restructuring / de-layering really usher in efficiency?

In managerial terms efficiency is something that allows smooth functioning of a process where the hierarchy that exists does not impede progress. So, in an organization where approval from the lower level to the higher level is conveyed through the middle management then it becomes a classic case of efficiency being stalled by the mid management.

If the lower end employee was given the autonomy to reach out to the higher level employee and vice versa then the decision making process could become faster, smoother and efficient. That is why really sometimes simply eliminating those segments in the workforce or restructuring of workforce will avoid “red-tapism”

This does not mean you fire employees. It only means that you allow a cross level direct communication to quicken the pace of the decision making process. This democratic approach will bring in a more interactive and integrating org culture which will bring in a surge in the efficiency as well as effectiveness of the organization and its people.

But one size doesn’t fit all! Such decisions should be made considering the size and industry of an organization.

 An open door policy may be counter-effective in some cases. For instance in a young product SAAS company with less than 100 people strength will benefit having a close knit team culture where everyone is approachable. But will the same hold true for when they touch 500 or when individual teams reach a 20-25 mark each? If the leadership hasn’t been established to take care of the eventual growth spurt it is likely to cause many operational and cultural issues.

 In my opinion everything goes back to hiring right – right culture, right muscle for the right stage and task at hand. This sets the tone for numerous pivots and experimentation the company will go through. The next set of initial founding team members raising newer teams will set the course for the existence and vitality of that team. When everything is work in progress it’s easier to outshine with closer to perfection at that particular time stamp of the company’s existence. But these byte sized imperfect perfections are what will one day be fondly remembered as the origin series.