By Aaron De Smet, a senior partner in McKinsey’s Houston office; Sarah Kleinman an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office; and Kirsten Weerda an associate partner in the Munich office.
Separating people-leadership tasks from day-to-day business leadership can help organisations strike a better balance between centralisation and decentralisation, reduce complexity, and embrace agility.
The CEO of a major global business, deeply frustrated, took time out recently as a large company-wide reorganisation was stumbling toward its conclusion. Hard as he and his top team had tried, he told us, attempts to make collaboration and empowerment an enterprise-wide reality were foundering.
Although he had been determined to ensure resources were reallocated across the group more dynamically, people and money remained doggedly stuck in slightly revamped silos. Tensions between the group’s central functions—such as finance, HR, and IT—and the group’s decentralised businesses were continuing to rumble. As he gazed at a new organisation chart on his laptop, he scratched his head while trying to make sense of the complex collection of solid and dotted-line reporting relationships floating across the screen.
The CEO in question is actually a composite of several with whom we’ve had different versions of this same conversation. Their frustrations, in turn, are similar in spirit to concerns we hear almost daily from many other senior executives. As our business environment has become more complex and interconnected, we seem to be replicating that in our organisations, creating complex matrix structures that simply don’t work anymore. We are over-reliant on the same management tools for organisation structure that we’ve been using for decades, namely hierarchical org charts with solid and dotted-line reporting relationships.
There are no easy answers to deep-rooted organisational dysfunction. However, we’re increasingly convinced that there is a simple, exciting, and effective structural model that can replace complex matrix structures and help leaders across industries and geographies who struggle with confused roles and laboured decision-making processes, and who feel they are failing to move quickly enough to exploit new market opportunities.
The “helix,” as we’ve dubbed it, is not a new idea. It has been around for decades in professional-service firms and in parts of some large global companies, and more recently in many agile enterprises. But until now, it has lacked a name and clear definition, and its power to unlock organisational bottlenecks and to strike a better balance between centralisation and decentralisation has never been properly articulated. It is seldom implemented at significant scale, and many organisations that initially embrace it slide back to more traditional (and often less effective) structures. That’s no coincidence. For reasons we will discuss, successfully adopting the helix requires management mind-sets and a talent infrastructure that many businesses do not currently possess.
In a nutshell, the secret of the helix lies in disaggregating the traditional management hierarchy into two separate, parallel lines of accountability—roughly equal in power and authority, but fundamentally different.
One of the two lines helps develop people and capabilities, sets standards for how work is done, and drives functional excellence; the other focuses those people and capabilities on the priorities for the business (including overseeing their day-to-day work), creates value, and helps deliver a full and satisfying customer experience.
By disaggregating the hierarchy and ensuring that for any given set of leadership responsibilities only one person is accountable, we can stop forcing employees to answer to multiple “bosses” who think it is within their purview to perform the same set of leadership functions such as hiring and firing, job assignments, promotions, evaluations, and incentives. All this helps to preserve unity of command, reduce tension, increase speed and flexibility, and more effectively confront the challenges the matrix was meant to address in the first place.
Beyond the matrix
The helix is perhaps best understood in the context of matrix organisations that attempt but often struggle to integrate the functional, geographic, channel, and product units of large companies and that, after decades of experience, are now deeply anchored in today’s people-management systems and culture.
Existing matrix roles typically have one primary “boss,” identified by a solid line on the organisation chart, and a secondary one, depicted by a dotted line. The first boss is primary in the sense of holding resources and controlling the budget and tends to be responsible for hiring, firing, promotions, and evaluations—as well as for the direction, supervision, and prioritisation of daily work.
Inspired by the distinctive, double-stranded shape of DNA that scientists discovered in the early 1950s, the helix, by contrast, decouples people-leadership tasks typically performed by one manager into two sets of tasks performed by two different managers, each of which is equally relevant (exhibit). Crucially, these managers are neither “primary” nor “secondary,” as is the case in the matrix. One boss provides and makes decisions about one set of things (such as hiring and firing, promotions, training, and capability building); the other boss makes decisions about another set of things (such as prioritisation of goals and work, daily supervision of task execution, and quality assurance).
Because the two roles are so different, there should be less need for the power struggles, tensions, and conflicts often found in more traditional structures. Importantly, though, the two managers—one of which we’ll call the “capability leader,” the other the “value-creation leader”—have to agree on a number of things: who and what to deploy to projects, initiatives, and business units, for example, and how much these human and other resources are going to cost. (Value-creation leaders must pay for them out of their budget.)
When done right, this approach is liberating for leaders. By decoupling these two lines of authority, the helix frees the likes of senior engineers, designers, salespeople, and other functional experts from the burden of serving as day-to-day supervisors. Their employees, moreover, feel more empowered than in the traditional matrix, no longer in the crosshairs between two bosses, both of whom feel responsible for the same things and may give employees conflicting guidance. Those employees also find it more natural to participate in small, ad hoc teams, often comprising people from multiple business units and functional centres of excellence where, in practice, a lot of work gets done.
The helix in action
Here’s how the helix could look from the viewpoint of an individual employee, and how it has played out at one organisation.
Jaime, a composite of dozens of managers we know, is a mid-tenured marketing director accountable for hitting monthly performance targets at the biggest business unit of a North American consumer-goods company. She has regular check-in meetings with her boss to review progress in the product categories for which she is responsible. Her priorities and what’s expected of her naturally change from time to time, but the relationship between Jaime and her boss is clear.
However, there is another reporting dimension for Jaime: a dotted-line boss in the online group of the company, with whom she also meets on a regular basis to discuss the goals of her online marketing team. This arrangement creates tension. Even when both managers are in sync, Jaime ends up spending twice as much time in meetings as is necessary, and her secondary manager often feels he is wasting his time trying to engage Jaime on issues that are not important to her on a day-to-day basis.
If that secondary, dotted-line boss gives direction and feedback that is at odds with the primary boss—for example, demanding a higher focus on creating brand awareness rather than on converting customers, or suggesting a new web feature—Jaime ends up striving to please both, or managing the consequences of disappointing the one whose priorities she has de-prioritised. The ambiguity Jaime feels is often reflected in her year-end review, because both bosses have a say.
Imagine now that Jaime moves from a matrix to a helix organisation. She is still accountable to two leaders, both equally important, but neither are formally responsible for all people-leadership duties like a traditional boss would be, because their responsibilities have been cleanly divided in a way that makes sense given their expertise. The value-creation leader clarifies objectives, discusses and sets day-to-day priorities, and measures and provides feedback on delivery against her goals and targets. The capability leader is available if Jaime wishes to go to him with a question on, say, marketing best practices, the company’s standards and guardrails with respect to branding, or a new industry standard—or when she feels she needs coaching or advice with respect to the functional subject matter: marketing.
When market conditions change, or when Jamie and her capability leader think it’s time she makes a career move, both leaders will confer about the options (likely conducting a joint career discussion, led by the capability leader, who is accountable, but with input coming from the value-creation leader to inform the discussion). The outcome may be that Jaime is ready for a promotion and, guided primarily by the capability leader, she moves to a role in a different unit where new opportunities have emerged. She will have a new value-creation leader in her new role, but she will keep her old capability leader through her transition. The capability leader would arrange to have a new resource deployed to fill Jaime’s former role, likely with some overlap to properly hand over the role—again, all in consultation with the value-creation leader.
How the helix helps
In our experience, there are two principal benefits of adopting a helix design (besides greater clarity and simplicity for the employee, which unlocks their productivity and performance). First, it helps those companies that have already achieved agility at the team level make agility a reality across the whole enterprise, by making resource allocation more dynamic. Second, it alleviates tensions between centralised functions and decentralised business units, allowing entrepreneurship and flexible reactions in different business units without losing the positive scale effects of a global function.
Making the helix a reality
Given that today’s people-leadership practices and HR systems and cultures are often rooted in the idea that “my people are my power,” the challenges of implementing a helix model and making it stick should not be underestimated.
The global consumer-products company discussed earlier is a salutary example of the benefits of a helix-style design—but it also demonstrates the challenges of making this model work. Despite the benefits, the organisation ultimately reverted to its old ways when the pioneering CMO left the business; his successor effectively pulled the central brand people away from the business units by creating new work for them, undermining the trust of the brand owners.
As a result, the brand barons once again became less interested in sharing people with the CMO and took back responsibility for all people-leadership duties. The company proceeded to operate much as it had before the helix was introduced.
No operating model is solved by structure alone, and attempts to change the reporting lines can all too easily be upended when a visionary and persuasive individual moves on. For the helix to work, new processes and different mind-sets must be embedded to remove obstacles and overcome scepticism.
Leaders must make a few key moves to set up the helix model for success:
Create a talent marketplace
The smooth deployment of people will only happen if companies have, or are able to develop, a functioning internal talent market.
A talent marketplace requires leaders to have a detailed understanding of available people—who they are, what they are doing, what skills and attributes they possess, and when they can be deployed from their current assignment. It’s not enough for capability leaders just to know that someone is a general marketing expert; systems must tag specific experience, industry expertise, language skills, and other distinguishing qualities.
These leaders also have to understand the current and future needs across the business (working closely with the value-creation leaders to understand business priorities), which new roles are opening up, which existing ones are changing, what new initiatives need staffing and when, and what skills are required for each role. Most importantly, they need to identify the roles that will likely create the most value.
In organisations that do this well, individuals have much more influence over their own career.
Make resource planning transparent and effective
It’s important to have sufficiently mature resource and strategic workforce planning to allow value-creation leaders to forecast their people needs (key knowledge, skills, and experience) and to give capability leaders enough time to match supply to demand with respect to particular skills and roles.
Like strategic planning generally, this should not be a one-off annual exercise; in the most forward-thinking companies, such resource planning is done quarterly. Decisions follow a well-prepared executive discussion, based on accurate and up-to-date data and clearly defined key performance indicators. At one point, Google used number of users as the basis for deciding whether to invest in, or dissolve, particular business units.
People allocation should be linked with adaptive, flexible financial budgeting. At a minimum, you need some kind of simple cost transfers to allow businesses and value-creation lines to pay for the people who have been deployed to them.
Ensure accountability is clear
A new combination of functions and project teams at a defence agency broke down because the people deployed to the project teams never assumed ownership for their work. The organisation lacked effective talent-management processes, and with their chain of command leading back to their functional “home” (and day-to-day managers having no role in their performance reviews), employees saw their assignment as only a temporary duty.
To overcome this, value-creation leaders need to establish a strong joint purpose for their teams and ensure the right combination of roles and skills. These leaders should send people back to the function/skill pool and request new people if any individuals prove to be a poor fit, and use the opportunity of performance evaluations to monitor progress.
Balance performance management across the two roles
Many managers doubt their ability to evaluate someone and give them appropriate incentives when they haven’t directly supervised their activities on a daily basis. In a helix structure, it’s vital that the two people leaders are aligned and willing to participate in employees’ performance reviews. Processes that underly evaluations, and hiring and firing, should incorporate feedback from both the capability and value-creation leaders (even if the former is ultimately responsible for aggregating the feedback and delivering the review). Value-creation leaders who oversee employees’ daily work should provide feedback on the quality and skills of the people on their teams so that capability leaders know where development is needed. The best modern performance-management systems insist on several perspectives, including 360-degree evaluation.
Look for pockets of opportunity where there is a need to combine local accountability with the benefits of centralised capabilities and resources. As the model proves its worth, it can start taking hold more widely—provided that leaders recognise its benefits and get comfortable with their role in making it work.
Done well, however, the helix will build in the flexibility to help an organisation match the pace of external change and innovation.
(This is an extract of the full article which can be found here on the McKinsey website)