Electronic mail

Israel's Defense Forces (I.D.F.) has announced that it is working nowadays on a new command that will limit email sending so that any soldier can send an email up two ranks higher than himself, and not above.
No doubt, that the electronic mail has influenced our lives, and has influenced management. This example of the new army command is one example that demonstrates how much technology influences culture and flattening of the hierarchical organization structure.
Is this something good? And if not, is it right to block it? Maybe, in the 21st century it is rather a good idea to flatten the organization or at least reduce the mental gap between the organizational ranks.

The issue is complicated; however, no matter what the final decision is, I think that two things have to be considered while taking the decision:
Technology should not dictate culture. Each organization has to analyze the advantages it could achieve from the organizational flattening, and potentially there indeed are advantages: The employee thinks wider looking at the big picture as the organization does not treat him as a small part in a well-defined organization; good new ideas can defuse better. Furthermore, in Israel, where the post is written, many people know one another from several different life cycles having different hierarchy relationships in each; etc. If these advantages are greater than the disadvantages deriving from emails to all (and on the disadvantages I will not elaborate as we were all brought up on them and know them all), then we should favor the free email usage. Of course, if this is the case, new bounds should be set, preserving the managers' place as the final decision maker.
If a decision is taken to make a change, as the one reported to be in I.D.F., then the change has to be managed. It should be communicated, explained, and not only commanded. The reason is obvious: Employees already got use to this ability. Any change will be interpreted as worsening conditions and can cause bitterness. The move and its rational should be communicated and special care has to be given to the period until people get use to the new process of work.

However, email usage has more in to it for the 21st century worker, beyond organizational flattening.

Email has totally changed our availability to work. Even though we all have cellular telephones, people do not tend to call us off working hours (and yes- working hours' definition is tricky). With emails, we have no problem. We can write whenever convenient to us, and if it is not work time, we assume that the employee, receiving the mail, will answer when s/he find it suitable. Without noticing, we reach a situation in which most of us work, write each other, exchange opinions and tasks almost 24 hours a day.

Emails have also changed our routines on working hours. Sometimes we have the feeling that email is managing us, no us managing it. It seems as if every half an hour the mail carrier arrives, with a new big sack full with mail, leaves it on our step door and goes to bring the next one. The piles turn higher, and the small message on our inbox notifying us how many mails yet have to be read and/or handled leaves us stressed, hopeless or both. Some people reach a situation when all day they reply to mails, and again, as in the beginning of the post, somehow the mail is the initiator managing us, and we are the responders.
What can I recommend? I manage the time in which I answer mails. Emails are treated mainly on evenings, nights and on the early hours of the day. Most daytime is dedicated to people. I do enjoy the mails advantages not letting it gaining control on me (at least most of the time).

A post on emails cannot end without concerning the email's content, beyond the framing (to whom and when). Email is somewhat risky. On the one hand, we regard it as something less formal, as speaking on the phone, or even speaking face-to-face. We speak unofficially and therefore, not always consider every word we use. Email however, is written. If we get an email from some colleague, or even worse, with some subordinate, and are under the impression that they hurt our feeling, we read it again, and again, empowering the insult. It is very different from a situation where someone speaks with us. The situation is even more complicated, ad when speaking face-to-face, and even on phone, the one with whom we are communicating, can sense our feelings. S/he can fix the impression, clarify things, apologize, or limit the arm level. With emails, we do not have this luxury: On the one hand, informal; on the other hand, very formal.

What is recommended? To read every mail we write and think if there is any chance it will be misunderstood; to use the email channel to shorten things, but better use it on good or natural issues. To remember that a third person can pass and see what was written. The bottom line: do not give up this fabulous channel, yet use it a bit less than what would seem natural.

Email indeed is a revolution, a revolution of the 21st century. A technological revolution that has influenced quality of life, pace, and ways we treat our managers. I do think that at the end of the day, it does have more advantages than disadvantages, and we should be happy with it.

And, yes, I think that organizations can be flattened, at least in most cases (of course, I do not know what is best for the army). Authority in the 21st century starts from knowledge and is less influenced by formal hierarchies only. The manager has to invest more to be appreciated and treated with honor, and it is less a case of the ability to send or not to send him or her, an email. The knowledge era builds its own balances between things.

I wish us all, to indeed benefit from the email revolution. I wish we will have many other positive revolutions as the email one.

Yours,
Moria

to the Hebrew version

Rewarding

"Incentives and rewards are some of the most powerful management tools available" (Cited from "Making innovation Work", written by Davila, Epstein & Shelton).

People work against some compensation. We do not expect people to come to work day after day if s/he does not receive anything in return. Yet, when we deal with rewarding, we redefine the scope, speaking not only about salary (or self-contentment in case of volunteers). People expect to be rewarded; they expect a system that will encourage those who do well and punish those who do not).

A close examination of what I written above, can teach about two objectives in rewarding:
The first sentence was cited from an excellent book I read on innovation. Innovation deals with changing the organization; leaving the current situation and replacing it by another one. Rewarding, as to the authors, is an essential tool for aiding this change and help it turning into organizational reality. If you want to change peoples' behavior, give them incentives before and while changing, and reward them after.
The second objective of rewarding is somewhat different. It deals with the daily routine, motivating us to continually work and perform better. It resembles the gasoline, which every car needs a steady supply in order to continue driving. This need is part of our genes as people, and it only grows with us being knowledge workers, choosing whether to stay and how well can we perform.

It is obvious why rewarding is so important: To help maintaining and to help changing.
The problem starts as rewarding is not as simple as we would wish.
It is not simple to reward, as, due to researches, to much rewarding, leads to poor performance. I think the reason is twofold: First, people get used to the rewards, and the level of rewarding required grows higher. The second reason has to do, with the fact that people understand that less is required from them in order to actually win the reward, and they naturally will tend to make fewer efforts.
It is not simple to reward as no company lives in a vacuum: The employees have expectations regarding what they were use to in previous places of work; towards what they hear from friends and family; and towards what happens in the market in which the company works. It is very easy to be drawn after others and build some rewarding system that does not serve us as a specific organization. Acting otherwise and not answering employees' expectations, and un-satisfaction and de-moralization can follow.
It is not simple to reward, as rewarding should be proportional to the phenomenon or behavior which we want to encourage. As already I have written in previous posts, measuring is difficult. In many cases, it is complicated to estimate how much each individual contributed to some success.

However, the main question is not why rewarding is not simple, yet how should it be done.
First, an organization has to conduct its own rewarding system, based on its unique organizational culture; I recommend not following others, not to be drawn after the industry, nor neighbors or friends. The saying "we are unique" can lead to a positive implementation, if communicated properly. Of course, expectations should be leveled with new employees, before they are hired, and as part of the interviewing process. In case of an existing organization, wishing to change its current rewarding system, things are more complicated. I read a study, conducted by Kaplan, claiming that people tend to become fixated on existing incentive and rewarding systems and resist the change. Such a change has to be managed, according to all well-known change management methodologies.

Second, any rewarding system has to be based both on organization needs as well as on the individual needs. In general, organizational needs are in high congruence with achievements and results, while individual needs are more connected to efforts. Both need to be rewarded. Rewarding can be "hard", mainly money in all formats, starting with higher salary, bonuses, stock options, etc. Rewarding can be "soft", examples including recognition, promotion, publication, compliments, professional course, etc. Using Maslow's needs pyramid can help in designing the rewarding system. What I find important is to balance between the two, being sensitive and wise.

Any rewarding system, no matter how designed, should answer some principles in order to be effective:

• Fairness. Living in a situation where other employees do understand why their colleague was rewarded and not them. Any rewarding system should aspire to reward individuals when the organization was rewarded significantly.
• Answering the individuals' needs. No matter if the rewarding is for a team or for the individual, s/he has to be touched and motivated.
• Balanced in scope. Too generous rewarding systems are not considered effective, and in some cases harm. To little yet communicated rewarding, will have cynical interpretations.
• Flexible. Never pre-define everything. Always there are unexpected situations in which an employee should be rewarded. The rewarding system has to be flexible enough to answer these situations as well.
• Stable. Do not change to often the rewarding system.

And most important-

• Suitable. Fitting the organization's spirit.

I hope we all succeed rewarding our employees and motivate them to work properly and change when appropriate. At the end of the day, we have to remember, that rewarding is one of the most powerful management tools available.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Auhority

Places of work are formal organizations; places in which there are importance and significance to authority. In the mid 50th, when classic management theories developed, the source of authority was clear and loud: Authority derived from organizational position. Every position had its status, and granted authority. IT was clear to each employee what is permitted and where boundaries stand.
Today, in the 21st century, terms of work have changed. The relation between the worker and in particular the knowledge worker and his/her manager turned more complicated and less definite. Also today, we are not speaking about a symmetrical relation, yet it is clear that the authority of managers is not as it was, and for sure does not derive from status and position alone.

Discussing authority includes discussion on two complementary aspects: Discussing source of authority, and discussing delegation of authority.

Delegation of authority, or delegation of power, is not the same as transferring responsibility. When I delegate the authority to decide or act to any subordinate manager or worker, they get the operational responsibility, but the managerial responsibility remains mine. One can delegate authority for permanent, for a temporary period, or as a one-time act, all affecting the responsibility of the employee. In all cases, however, the manager remains responsible.

Many managers find it difficult to delegate authority. In some cases, they literally do not pass any authority to take decisions, or even to act, that could be delegated, to their subordinates. In other cases, they do, yet continue to ask and interfere, not giving up control.
The difficulty in delegating authority can derive from several reasons:
Sometimes, we start working on a mission that indeed is part of our job, and continue on, even though it was correct to stop and pass the next stages on to one of our subordinates. This is the easier case, as awareness to this situation solves the problem.
Another reason has to do with the fact that we as managers, are usually more senior, more experienced, and hence, we feel that if we complete the task by ourselves, not passing it to others, it will be completed, faster, or maybe even better. I admit that from time to time, I also find myself in this situation.
A similar reason has to do with the energy we have to invest in explaining someone else what we want to achieve, how and why, and in being sure that we get that. We feel, that we prefer to complete the job by ourselves. In some cases, this may be the right solution, but the decision, has to be made, considering all aspects.
Sometimes, it is a task that we find more pleasant, and we wish to do it by ourselves.
In addition, sometimes, we are afraid. This has to do with the synonym of delegation of authority- delegation of power. This also has to do with the second part of this post, source of authority. We are afraid, that if we delegate authority, we loose power and loose source of authority. At the end of the day, we too, the managers, are human beings, and we wish to protect ourselves, whether consciously or non-consciously.

I can continue and add more reasons why delegation of authority is not as easy as one could expect. Yet, this is not the main issue. The main issue is that delegation of authority is important.
It is important to reduce our burden and navigate workload better;
It is important in order to develop the professionalism of our subordinates;
Moreover, it is important, in order to build trust between us and our subordinates, and let them know that we are willing to trust them and rely on them.

A few tips to do with delegation of authorities:
When you delegate authority, you must leave the employee who is in charge, some free hand, both freedom of choice and freedom of action. Do not guide him/her down to the last point and leave them to follow only.
When you delegate authority, do not totally let go. Remember that some guidance is required, and some control is requested. Remember that responsibility stays in our hands.
When you delegate authority, communicate it in the organization. Also, to ease on the operational level, but much more important, as a way to respect the person who is in charge. Soft rewards are critic in motivating employees.

The discussion on authority is not completed without examining the sources of authority. As I already wrote in the beginning of this post, the source of authority is changing as the concept of work and workers is changing. In general, the source of authority depends significantly on the manager's knowledge. Employees respect managers who know. This, of course, is not the only parameter to take in mind; employees will value a manager and accept his or her authority, if they understand what is required, and if the request and demands correlate with the organization's values as well as with their own ones.

How do these influence managers and their behavior? I am not sure.
However, in order to improve we all have to be aware of the changes in source of authority. Moreover, we have to understand that authority delegation and knowledge sharing strengthen us as well as our subordinates.

Plato, who lived many years before we started working in formal organizations, spoke about authority. He said: "The wisest have the most authority". Those who are smart, know, and have good judgment and keen discernment (definition of wise), are those who turn to be a source of authority.

It took us many years and various organizations' formats in order to go back to roots, and deeply understand his saying. There are probably good reasons, why this Greek philosopher, the student of Socrates, was one of the greater influencers on our Western philosophy.
Seeing how wise he was, he certainly was a source of authority.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Recession

The whole world is now going through a difficult period. We all are experiencing a recession, in Israel where I live and write, as well as in the US and everywhere else.
Once, we used to think that globalization is a good thing; the recession has taught us that the absence of place and time limits has also its deficiencies, and globalization enables the spreading of less attractive factors, from the US to China, Europe, Israel and actually, every other place. Moreover, the US is not to blame. It could start also elsewhere (i.e. the SARS disease).

How should one manage the organization in a recession period? How should he or she manage their knowledge workers? Are there any guiding rules?
When one writes a book, s/he can choose to focus on specific areas, ignoring others, ignoring the happenings. When one writes a blog, people expect you to be connected to reality and to the existence. Not speaking on such issues may imply non-transparency and non-willing to open up.

Do not misunderstand me. The company, which I manage, while writing these lines, continues to makes its living, continues not to loose. Thus, even though we all are already four months inside an economic crisis. What will happen tomorrow? Will we continue to earn enough? No one can really know. For the time being, things are stable. Yet, this post is a necessity as we are all part of something big, bigger than us. It is important to speak about this management issue, even though it is not easy to hear, nor easy to say.

As this blog deals with managing the employees, the post will focus on the relevant issues, leaving out economic or other business aspects, all critical to the situation.

It is important to express and show transparency at this time. This does not imply that every business detail should be announced widely, and that every time we feel bad after a customer shares us with his distress, we should pass our feelings on, yet employees should be shared regarding the overall situation and updated periodically reflecting the changing trends.
I do believe that such a saying could be difficult to implement in times of growth and economic bubbles. While experiencing a recession, this might seem easier to implement. Now, employees are not so easily willing to move to another place of work, as it is probably more risky to be in a place that you do not know, that somewhere you already know and understand.
This therefore is not only a correct thing to say, but also an applicable one.

It is not less important to be sensitive to our subordinates. We must understand that each one and one of them experiences the instability differently, even though we are all in one company. The feelings may be a result of seniority in the organization, the job itself, the necessity as they sense it, and, of course, ones character.

It is important to be sensitive as each one of our employees has back at home parents, husbands, wives and other close people who may be in distress or even has maybe lost his or her job. Such an event can affect the emotional and economic state of the employee.

It is important to economize and save. Be cautious! Too much can seem as miserliness, or drive a feeling of instability. It is important to show that now is no party time; no spending time. Nevertheless, some small spending is important for our souls and we must find the right balance in between.

It is important to share the employees not only about facts regarding the recession and its impacts, rather in ways to change. Share your employees and ask them to share responsibility in bringing in new customers. Sit and speak with your employees asking them to come up with ideas how to offer more, or offer differently, considering the timing. This may result in better figures; moreover, we sense here the togetherness. People say that crisis is an opportunity. I would be happy to give up such opportunities if that's what it takes not to have any crisis. Yet, as the crisis is already here, let us drive higher cohesion between the company's employees.

It is important to be humble. To remember, that even if we think we are the best, we probably are not, and surely not perfect. Not everything is in our hands. In periods of growth and success, we as employers are captive somewhat, as we manage knowledge workers and these are free to leave and find some other place to work. Recession is employers' era. We must not take advantage! We must remain humble. We must remember that tomorrow will be a different era, but furthermore, we must remember to respect the other even though we are in charge and have the authority.

I read the lines above, and I suddenly realize; the crisis and the recess that followed teach us how to act, also in crisis time, but also in every other period. Maybe in recession it is a necessity, but it all times it is probably the proper and more dignified way to act.

Transparency, sensitivity, cohesion, sharing and humbleness. Not to much- yet everything.

Yours,
Moria

To the hebrew version

Diligence

Friday morning. Seven o'clock and I step into the Supermarket near home. This is the opening hour, and within minutes I look around and the place is full. People arrive, fill their carts, say hello and goodbye and move on. Every time, this simple operation fills me with pride to the place in which I live. In Tel-Aviv for example, Before Ten o'clock in the morning, no one wakes up, surely does not find him or herself in the Supermarket. I always feel proud; we have diligent people.
Many people have spoke about the importance of diligence. Voltaire has said that "The richness of a country depends on the amount of diligent people it holds"; Samuel Johnson claimed that " '''Few things are impossible to diligence and skill". Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that "Moderation and diligence are the true cure of the humanity", and in the Bible, in Proverbs, the book of wisdom, that was written by King Solomon, we find the saying: "Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways, and learn wisdom".
Diligence is ascribed, from what is said, to wisdom and success. Yet, I have a feeling that this word, the "diligence" has to be reminded sometimes, as we hear and use it less and less. I checked in Google and found only approximately 6 million times the word was mentioned. Wisdom, in comparison, is mentioned 76 million times, success 435 million times, beauty 659 million times and love is mentioned 2 billion times!
I can continue and compare diligence to many other words, but there is no need: The case is loud and clear. Diligence has lost its glory.

I believe, that even though we are in the 21st century, it is very important that our employees are diligent and that we nurture them in this direction. Why? Because diligence is probably an essential component in good performance; however, there is an additional reason: Diligence is an essential component also in entrepreneurship and in the organizations ability to maintain not only in the presence but also to step towards the future.

The interesting question is what is diligence in the practical level and how do we achieve it. I will share with my understanding of diligence and my way to it.

There are several aspects to diligence:
First, a diligent employee works enough hours and does not tend to miss hours or days of work. I speak with people who I interview to work, and explain that the work is at minimum nine hours a day. Many times, more is required. The truth is that I do not really require much more, unless we experience peeks. Organizations who demand 11-12 hours a day, do not deal, to my opinion, with diligence. I believe it is more like taking advantage of people. Diligence is positive, yet our body and souls need the rest so we can continue contributing also on the next day and week.

Another aspect to deal with diligence has to do with the time in which we respond and act. If missions are delayed up to the last moment, or performed almost as they are held out. I have learned that missions that are performed rather early take me less time, twofold: We remember the setting and all related details and therefore save energy of re-entering the subject. Furthermore, remembering we have another task, and trying to remember all details (until we start) takes energy and attention. A diligent person starts early. In the Bible, we find two people that started early: Abraham, who got up early in order to fill God's request to sacrifice his son Isaac; and Bilam, who got up early running on to curse the people of Israel.

The last aspect, regarding diligent, as I see it, has to do with the work we carry on. In every job, in every role, there are parts that are enriching, parts that challenge us intellectually and other parts are less cherishing. Sometimes we think a less skilled person could fill in, sometimes it includes parts we do not like to do.
Even though it may be not the definition of diligence, I found out, that diligent people never say no to a mission, also if they do not fantasy it. They never say they are overqualified, or that they were not hired for this type of missions. Diligent people are prepared to work. Even if it is work, and not fun.

How do I achieve diligence within my employees?
I do so in two simple ways:
a) I demand diligence from all employees, in all three aspects mentioned.
b) I try to give them a good example. Role modeling.

Does it work? I believe so. Even though we are in the 21st century and diligence is not a sexy or trendy word, the employees are diligence. I indeed appreciate them for that.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Employments leaving work

It is natural, in a blog dealing with management issues, to deal also with employees who leave. I admit, that I always was too frightened to write a post on this A live blog is not a book on the shelf. I knew that no matter when I will decide to write about leaving employees, the timing would be bad. Once, an employee decided to leave; some other time, someone did not fit in and we announced that s/he should leave. Even if not all these situations are relevant, I may put the existing employees under pressure, just by writing such a post, fearing from some unannounced plans.
Yet, I believe there is place for such a post, as the blog tries to examine all aspects of management. Therefore, I sat and started writing.

There are three types of situations of leaving employees: There are employees who retire; there are employees who leave in order to work in some other organization; and, there are employees who we decide to dismiss. An organization who nurtures a close relationship between the organization and the employees, hurts when the employees leaves, no matter what the circumstances are. An uncomfortable feeling exists among everyone: The employer, the employee who is leaving, and all surrounding employees.

Yet, different emphasis should be put in each of the three types of leaving employees:

When an employee retires, the main risk, organizationally speaking, is loss of knowledge. An employee, who retires, in most cases, has spent many years within the organization. In most cases the knowledge s/he has accumulated, is unique and valuable. It is true, that within the many years of this employee with others in the organization, s/he had built relationships. However, toward this coping, both the leaving employee and his/her friends in work, have time to adjust. From the day we join an organization, we know, that the day will come, and we will retire. Nowadays, that people live longer, and turn older later, many people wait for this opportunity of retirement and plan carefully their second life, after retirement. The emphasis, as has already been noted, is on knowledge retention. The organization has to prepare itself and manage a well order process: deciding what knowledge will be prioritized for retention; deciding what will be documented, and how; deciding what will be accessible to all in an organizational website; deciding what will be transferred to other employees through conversations; deciding whether one employee will fill all job components, or will the role be divided down and passed to several employees. Such a process should be managed. The responsibility of the direct manager of the leaving employee, includes: Initializing the process, prioritizing what knowledge is to be kept, and more important, what knowledge can be dismissed (one can never pass all knowledge). The manager has to decide who will take in place (one or more); how soon should the process start before the employee leaves; and, when the knowledge transfer takes place, to see that it actually happens in the right quality and pace.

We should not degrade the complexity and importance of this process. We are speaking about employees who work many years in the organization, and knowledge retention is not as simple as we wish. Knowledge transfer will not happen by itself. We must understand, that if we even do everything possible, the expertise is lost, and parts of the knowledge remain, The objective of a knowledge retention process, is too retain, as much as possible of the knowledge. In many cases, the manager is not aware enough, and knowledge transferring takes place, but not in the right pace or effectiveness. There are written methodologies how to handle this issue, and I will not elaborate about the "how", just say- it must be done.

There are organizations in which the retiring employees turn to be consultants after they leave. In many cases, these employees earn more as consultants, and managers have to understand that this is not a healthy situation, as these employees tend to keep their knowledge to themselves in the years toward retirement. Our dependency grows bigger every generation.

There are employees, who leave the organization, on their own will. It is very common, as we witness nowadays, changing careers and changing places of work. Yet, organizations feel uncomfortable from these moves. The employees who stay in the organization, feel that maybe, outside there are better opportunities, and maybe they are mistaken for staying. The managers find it hard to accept. I once had a manager who was insulted from every employee who decided to leave her. After their decision to leave, she remembered mainly their faults, and we all have faults, even if we do a good job. Israel is a rather small country, and in such a market, people probably meet again in conferences, exhibitions, as suppliers or customers. In some cases, they even find themselves working together again, in some other place. Also if not, the manager has to know to control his/her feelings even if they feel betrayed from the move. Business-like behavior and no expression of positive feelings are the best in this situation. Even if the employee left after the organization has won a new project depending on this employee; even if there was an understanding with this employee on a planned promotion, leaving others behind. Behave business-like and express no bas feelings. Do not say any bad word, not even to the other managers. Of course not to other employees. Difficult, but recommended.
In this situation, knowledge has to be transferred, but it usually is much easier than in cases of retirement.

The most difficult situation, as I see it, is when we as managers, fire an employee. Sometimes such a situation is a necessity, whether because of economic circumstances or because the employee is not the right man for the right job. Certain issues should be addressed in this case:
First, we as managers must consider whether to enable the leaving employee stay in the office after the announcement, or do we disconnect him/her immediately asking them to take their belongings and leave. The answer is complicated and varies from one situation to another. It depends if the employee works in connection with customers and how the immediate leaving will influence the organizations connection with them; it depends how unique is the knowledge the employee carries and how critic is the knowledge retention process. It depends on the risk of knowledge theft by the leaving employee; and it depends, on how immediate leaving will ease the departure, or make it harder.

Another important issue to be addressed is how to prepare an employee to this traumatic situation?
There is no doubt that every dismissed employee experiences a trauma, at some level. I was once dismissed, and I believe this a situation that I will not ever forget. Above the insult, work is our major source of income and stability. Without work, most employees cannot continue. When we here such an announcement of loosing our job, we feel as in an earthquake. What can I suggest as an employer? When possible, prepare the employee before. If the circumstances are of someone less suitable for the job, speak about it a few times with the employee, urging him/her to improve explaining implications of not improving. If they improve- everyone wins. Even if not, at least we partly prepared them for the coming. I do admit, this is not as easy as it may sound. I find people having a hard time passing the message. They try to be nice to the person, with whom they are speaking with and tend to soften the message, leaving the employee with a different understanding. The receiving person, on the other hand, also may misunderstand the message even if things are said, again, as it is not a pleasant message. I do not have solutions for all cases. I just think that passing the message and preparing the employee towards the announcement of him/her leaving. If I did not speak myself with the employee about leaving, I call to say good-bye and good luck. I find this behavior very important and assisting.

Another issue when we dismiss an employee, is how to communicate the leaving to customers and suppliers. How do we communicate it to other employees? Also here, I must admit, there is no one simple answer, but one leading thought: We must be honest, while keeping the employee's honor. It is important to communicate something true, yet leave respect. We can give part of the details, yet we must speak. Customers will understand.

It is important to communicate the announcement to all other employees, almost immediately. I do this, by writing an email at the end of the day in which the announcement took place, A formal, yet supportive email, speaking about the circumstances, and expressing my real sad feelings.
We must remember, that things that we do not communicate, will be passed by rumors. It is also better if we pass the message and leave as less as we can in the open.
In rare situations, I even spoke about the situation with groups of employees, taking advantage of existing staff meetings, enabling people to share their feelings. It all depends on the situation.

The last question to do with this issue concerns knowledge transfer. Most dismissed employees will not find it appealing to help the organization preventing the knowledge loss, and to transfer on what they know. As this move is a planned one, part of the planning has to speak with the direct managers of the intended to leave employee, and decide how to handle the critic knowledge, parts of it shared even before the announcement takes place.

The issues are out there, they are not simple, and therefore I find myself writing such a long post.
If I have to sum it all in one sentence- knowledge to the organization, honor and sensitivity to the employee.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version

Organizational Structure

Henri Fayol, a French management theoretician, defined, already in 1916, fourteen management principles that have turned to a well-known list for all managers. Among the list are principles of rewarding, the management chain, the fraternity of the group, and more. One of these principles, that we find discussed also by many other management theoreticians, is the principle, that every employee has one manager instructing him and in charge of him. This sounds as a very natural principle; multiplicity of managers for a single employee can confuse him, can decrease efficiency (caused by holes in time when each manager is partial in charge) and can raise organizational political problems when conflicts develop. The list of potential problems is long, and it is reasonable therefore, that organizations were based many years on a hierarchical structure.

However, in the past years new needs develop questioning the correctness and fitness of the classical hierarchical organization structure for all purposes and for all circumstances. As many workers are knowledge workers, an important parameter influencing both on the needs and on the implacable solutions.
Knowledge workers are workers that knowledge takes a significant place in their activities. Developing the knowledge is a central component of their professionalism.

How does such a worker learn and develop his knowledge? Knowledge develops through personal experience, through team working, and by having a guiding manager pushing one up:
Personal experience exists, independent of the organizational structure. If we want to leverage it, it is preferable that the experience is diverse.
Working in teams enables us to learn from our colleagues who may have different education, skills and characteristic. The organizational structure does have influence on teams in which each employee is assigned.
The manager and his ability to guide are surely influenced from the organizational structure.
All three are intensified when the organizational structure is not hierarchical, when the worker has an opportunity for more diverse activities, taking part in several teams (including different people) and working with several managers, each manager adding his observation.

Based on these, I have set, several years ago, a heterarchy organizational structure, in the company, which I manage. The Internet defines a heterarchy organizational structure as a form of organization resembling a network or fishnet, where authority is determined by knowledge and function. Such a structure resemble the matrix known organizational structure (also called "M-form"), but is rather loose. It is a network, but not as strict as the classical matrix having employees assigned to two well-defined dimensions of managers. I have adopted this structure, and it may seem like cognitive dissonance, but I see its advantages every day.

The managers in my company each have a different combination of education, experience, skills and character, all relevant to the profession in which we specialize. In each project, we decide ad-hoc, which manager will lead and who will be included in the team of work. We will always recommend part time participation, enabling the team workers to continue their participation on other projects at the same time.

In practice, this project assignment method brings to a situation, in which every employee experiences diverse activities, is assigned to several teams, in which he learns and shares every time, his knowledge with different people. Furthermore, the professional manager varies from project to project, and the employee benefits learning from the experience of various managers (usually more senior).

Six month after I ruled this organizational structure, I found out its name (the heterarchical organizational structure) and learned that a researcher, named Hedlund, wrote an article, already in 1994, claiming that knowledge based units, as R&D, should be managed according to this structure. Hedlund defined principles for heterarchical management, and coined this method "the N-FORM", N standing for novelty, or new.
The novelty of this model compared the classical M-FORM, is:

1. Combination of issues and people in the N-FORM, compared to defined distribution in the M-FORM.
2. Temporary constellations of people and units in the N-FORM, instead of stable fix organizational structure in the M-FORM.
3. Importance of staff in "low" organizational levels and importance of dialog between functions and groups in the N-FORM, rather than managing the interface in high management levels, in the M-FORM.
4. Wide organization communication in the N-FORM, instead of top-down communication in the M-FORM.
5. A role of catalysts and architects of communication infrastructure, defined for the higher management, preserving the investment in knowledge in the N-FORM, rather than guiders, controllers, monitors and resource allocation definers in the M-FORM.
6. A heterarchical organizational structure.

How do I protect my employees from confusion, inefficiency and organizational politics? I admit there is no full answer, but these challenges are addressed by assigning one (managerial) manager for each employee, to whom this employee reports regarding vacations and sickness, with whom s/he consults with when some high-level conflict rises, and with s/he speaks when they need to share their thoughts or feelings.

As everything in life, there are no advantages without disadvantages. In order to help the suggested method actually work, good work-team between the managers must exist. They must know how to cooperate; moreover, they must show good will. When good will is missing, the difficulties grow bigger, and the advantages are not as promising.

When managers work in cooperation, everyone benefits. The employee benefits from improving development of knowledge and professionalism, as to the diversity in all dimensions described; the organization benefits improved quality.

For the time being, I am an exception in this method of management. It is interesting to know how organizations will structure their knowledge-based units ten years from today.
Until then, let us wait with patience.

Yours,
Moria

To the Hebrew version