Finding your Corporate Shape — Big, Small…what about Micro?

A challenge as companies grow is finding the right levels of “corporate-ness”. How to either learn from the giants of industry or keep yourself small enough to get everything done that you need to succeed. It’s a fine balancing act, especially for companies balancing remote working.

MICRO CORPORATE

The big question is just how corporate any company can be when its people are slung across the country or even the world? Too corporate and people can fall through the cracks, not structured enough and people may feel they aren’t part of the company at all.

It is a real challenge to find the balance which delivers for business, and that which keeps people on-side. So, what is too corporate? What is not corporate enough? How can we find that sweet spot? Where we remain organised, galvanised and all pulling in the same (right) direction, while also accepting that people working remotely do think differently.

No more are people the corporate cubicle drones. Employees have a sense of freedom and dynamism, such as many have never seen before. There are challenges to that, but there are so many more opportunities.

The macro corporate is the giant behemoth, one that has formed over decades, perhaps centuries. It has a deep-rooted sense of operational efficiency and can do the big things well as the systems, people and processes are in place. However, there is a danger too. The same systems, the reliance on process and forcing people to fit, can gum up the works when there are new ventures or innovations. They slow things down, impair them and then may even kill them off completely.

CERTAINTY OF SIZE

One of the problems for the macro corporate is the difficulties communicating internally can mean that problems go unstated, issues go unchallenged and unaddressed, and there is a sense that people would far rather go along than rise and challenge.

It is not just a physical issue, it is one of a sense of people feeling the “permission” to speak, to ask, to think and share. There are often three forces that can negatively impact the macro corporate. These are:

· Slowdown — the need for more meetings, ever more people, hierarchies and multiple layers to negotiate. All take up time. So much time. Governance is important, but so too is progress.

· Complexification — Big organisations have a natural tendency towards complexity. The number of requirements and constraints placed on products and development means that they often spiral into each other. Add to that the fact that there are usually senior people responsible for corporate policies, and suddenly it is an absolute doctrine to complexify.

· Cost Creep Force — Then comes cost. As you can see above, making things slower and more complex, almost inevitably comes with a cost impact. Things cost more for big companies. They pay more, they have more people, every step of the way means more, more, more. So the costs creep up and up. Suddenly even the best ideas don’t seem that good anymore when the costs just keep going up.

INTERNAL EXTERNAL

The macro corporate finds it so hard to develop impetus and maintain momentum. Ideas that start simple can grow in different directions, with more people, more hurdles to clear. Which can also see sticker shock when the sums are added up.

This is why so many large companies over the years have had their own internal “start-ups”. Perhaps the best example was born inside Lockheed Martin, the legendary Skunkworks, led by the infamous Kelly Johnson.

Johnson had a long list of rules and practices which meant that the skunk approach could deliver, not just better than its parent company, but better than anyone else. The rules amongst other things demanded complete control and autonomy, a restricted number of people to be involved, short and simple processes for approval, minimised reporting structures and properly funded.

Such skunking has worked in the past, but it is perhaps a sign of overall corporate failure. The reality is that a company often cannot deliver the best because its entire shape, function and process mean it is a barrier to itself. So, perhaps it is time for macros to rethink, refine and redesign themselves entirely, not just a few renegades in the farthest reaches of their corporation.

KEEPING AGILE

We now come to the micro corporate. Which could perhaps be the answer for big and small companies alike. A swarm of micro corporates could be the model for the big companies of the future. All playing a financial role in the parent, but with the freedom to do what they need to get done.

These smaller, more agile, micro corporates do face their own challenges and forces, but there are real advantages to be gleaned. These positives are not inevitable though, and still, need to be carefully managed and considered. There is a different kind of discipline to making the micro corporate model work, but the rewards are there to be grabbed.

Key in the micro space are issues around freedom, space to create and to even make mistakes, a chance to act how you need not how you are dictated, and of a sense of structure as a positive rather than a prison for ideas. The key micro corporate forces are:

· Freedom from certainty — The macro corporate needs and craves certainty, and their systems are created to gain it. For micro corporates, there is still that room for ambiguity, for small elements of doubt, but for hope, optimism and sheer bloody-mindedness to win through. You don’t have to have all the answers and can keep asking questions.

· Easier coordination — Fewer people mean less herding of cats. So, keeping agile, lean and able to crack on is a vital capability. The same applies to collaboration, it is easy to get going, harness and realise the benefits.

· Chance to suspend belief — Macro companies tend to have embedded dogma, they have a deep history and usually a long corporate memory. This can be good when it comes to keeping old things going, but bad when it comes to growing or embracing the new. Being able to be free of set ideas means a chance to explore and deliver real innovation.

· Flattening the Hierarchy — The organisational force of reporting, of accountability and fear therein, can stymie development. A hierarchy is great at a certain point, but alas once it goes beyond that sweet spot, then it becomes detrimental. The problem is it is very hard to spot where that line sits, and usually, companies fall over it. Smaller, flatter structures make for faster, and usually better decisions.

It is time for agility in business, for opportunities and innovations to be pursued, and it seems that the benefits of the micro corporate give hope to the small, and a blueprint for the big.