77. Bridging Organizational Silos

A silo is a tall, self-contained cylindrical structure that is used to store commodities such as grain after a harvest. It is also a figure of speech for organizational entities—and their management teams—that lack the desire or motivation to coordinate (at worst, even communicate) with other entities in the same organization. Wide recognition of the metaphor intimates that structural barriers in sizable organizations often cause units to work against one another¹: silos, politics, and turf wars are often mentioned in the same breath.

An organization is a social arrangement to pursue a collective intent.² Coordination, and the requisite communication it implies, is fundamental to organizational performance toward that. Yet, many organizations grapple with the challenge of connecting the subsystems they have devised to enhance specific contributing functions. Here and there, organizational, spatial, and social boundaries impede—when they do not block—the flows of knowledge needed to make full use of capabilities. High costs are borne from duplication of effort, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies. Everywhere, large organizations must move from managing silos to managing systems.

For 100 years, (fully or semi-) autonomous organizational arrangements have been designed to manage complexity, keep products and services close to clients, and hold managers accountable. (In the 1970s and 1980s, interest in matrix structures, be they in functional, balanced, or project form, mushroomed.)³ To this day, multiple command structures are found in most large organizations, even where traditional departmental structures—themselves tall chimneys—hold sway. This is testimony to the perceived effectiveness of such arrangements (even if few organizations track matrix structure performance and fewer still examine the human dimensions of operating and managing in the matrix).⁴ Still, silo power misaligns goals, dilutes roles and responsibilities, makes for ambiguous authority, leads to resource misallocation, breeds defensive personnel, and fosters a culture whereby the incentive is to maximize the performance of the silo, not that of the organization. Given frequent emphasis on silo-level metrics, monitoring, and management; the use of independent insights and toolsets across individual silos supporting a product or service; lack of shared understanding of service typologies; and the absence of coherent end-to-end views, silos cannot easily recognize corporate-level opportunities. (Indeed, they may even stand in the way of leveraging success where it occurs.)

In spite of that, the objective should not be to tear down silos by centralizing and standardizing—even though some of that may be part of the solution.⁵ In the name of performance improvements, the organizational designs that engender silos are usually the result of earnest attempts to identify the right business issues, pinpoint the right underlying obstacles, adopt the right design characteristics, and implement change the right way. And so, in general, silos do not exist because something was intentionally done: they come about because something was left undone, that is, the provision of compelling motives, means, and opportunities for personnel to come together. The idea, then, should be to replace competition with collaboration. Successful matrix (but also traditional) organizations take care to communicate a clear, consistent corporate vision and to define expectations; work to expand individual perspectives to co-opt ambitions, energies, and skills into the broader organizational agenda⁶; increase congruence with corporate values through training that reinforces desired attitudes and behaviors; evaluate personnel for work across functions; and help build relationships. (More and more, communities and networks of practice are empowered to accomplish the latter end.)

Collaboration begins with individuals (although organizations can do much to foster it).⁷ It is born of an intentional attitude that Tamm and Luyet (2005) have described as being in the Green Zone.⁸ Green Zone environments are marled by high trust, dialogue, excitement, honesty, friendship, laughter, mutual support, sincerity, optimism, cooperation, friendly competition, shared vision, flexibility, risk taking, a tendency to learn from mistakes, the ability to face difficult truths, the taking of broad perspectives, openness to feedback, a sense of contribution, the experience of work as pleasure, internal motivation, and ethical behavior.⁹

The outer and inner selves of individuals in the Green Zone are congruent. They seek connection according to deeply held values and character, rather than tactical or strategic thinking. Therefore, they convey an authentic, nondefensive presence. Their actions in a relationship are not driven by fearful motives, nor are they determined by an unconscious competitive spirit. When conflict arises, they seek to understand and to grow because they desire mutual gains rather than victory. They can do so because they have tools, methods, and approaches to cope in less reactive ways.

The Green Zone is a catalyst for creativity and innovation and for high levels of problem solving. It allows individuals to focus their ambitions, energies, and skills. In an atmosphere that is free of intrigue, mistrust, and betrayal, they have greater opportunities to realize the potential of their circumstances. They dream, believe, dare, and do. Until individuals operate in the Green Zone, organizations will not be able to tap the excitement, aliveness, and productive power of collaborative relationships.

On the contrary, silos are Red Zone environments ruled by fear and defensiveness. (A parallel can be drawn to the notion of the passive-aggressive organization that Booz Allen Hamilton diagnose with inability to execute, ineffective decision making, information disconnect, and inconsistent or conflicting motivators.) Developing four introspective skills can help staff and management there cultivate mindsets and enhance organizational cultures to conduce and sustain high-performing, long-term, collaborative relationships. The skills are (i) collaborative intention, (ii) truthfulness. (ii) self-accountability, and (iv) self-awareness and awareness of others.¹⁰

It follows that bridging organizational silos calls for collaboration, coordination, capability, and connection. This is easier said than done: practically, how can one aim at silo-driven problems? Usefully, Lencioni (2006) has proposed a model for combating silos, against which actions to build collaboration, coordination, capability, and connection can be framed. It is, of course, reminiscent of the logic models used to design and monitor projects or programs; the breakthrough lies in the proposed application at the corporate level of a system to overcome the barriers that turn colleagues into competitors. The model comprises four components: