Mind the Gap

Contrary to all attempts to flatten or even abolish hierarchies, they persist as an organizing principle in companies and corporations. Obviously, they fulfill an important function, regardless of whether they are imposed from above or developed informally through self-organization. Hierarchies seem to be indispensable to accomplish goals together with others. They fulfil not only an organizational but also a human need for order and orientation as well as the allocation of responsibility.

As hierarchies always form when people pursue common goals, it is worth asking how we can work with hierarchies instead of against them. As leadership and organizational coaches at Leadership Choices, we often see that in many larger organizations cooperation across hierarchical levels does not work or only inadequately, especially between the upper levels.

For example, there is often talk of paralysis in top and middle management circles. Middle management often complains about a lack of understanding at the higher level of the day-to-day running of their own organization and a one-sided focus on monetary results. Complaints about the level or amount of communication or its absence from top management, lack of feedback or lack of involvement in decision-making processes or long waits for concrete decisions are also typical.

Top management, on the other hand, often expresses dissatisfaction about a lack of personal responsibility or initiative from the subordinate level. They perceive a lack of strategic vision, while initia[1]tives and information are too often lost in translation and communication is not adequately passed on to the departments and teams. It is not uncommon for considerable rifts to occur between hierarchical levels due to a lack of trust in each other's abilities.

This article deals with ways to heal such ruptures or to prevent them from occurring in the first place so that the positive and organizing aspects of hierarchies can have a greater impact. The focus is on the structural boundaries between the hierarchy levels. This reveals the gaps in terms of expectations, information flows and processes that naturally arise at these boundaries. Using the motto Mind the Gap, awareness of these gaps is raised in order to ensure that they do not become trenches, but rather transitions that are as barrier-free as possible: Heal the Gap.

What does hierarchy mean?

Hierarchy is usually understood to mean a pyramid-shaped structure. The origin of the word is Greek and is composed of hieros (holy) and arche (leadership). Hierarchy thus had a direct connection to religion and was used to structure the order of precedence in religious institutions. We now use hierarchies in all kinds of organizations, not just human ones - classifications in botany or geology follow a hierarchical principle, even in software programming rankings have to be clarified: Which principle takes prec[1]edence over another? Ultimately, a hierarchy al[1]ways has something to do with superiority and subordination. It is a systemic principle that comes into effect as soon as two elements enter into a relationship with each other. The overrid[1]ing principle structures the relationship and thus provides meaning and stability.

Mind the Gap: Creating awareness

Where hierarchical levels meet, boundaries naturally have to be bridged. This is where decision-making powers and responsibilities are divided up, where relationships of superiority and subordination are clarified and defined. The boundaries ensure clarity and simultaneously create gaps between the hierarchical levels: on either side of the boundary things happen that are often not immediately recognizable or understandable by the other side.

One of the main gaps at this boundary is caused by an asymmetrical distribution of information and knowledge. This can actually be the case in both directions, depending on the issue, because the higher level does not always have all the infor[1]mation from the lower level. Gaps also result from spatial separations and tem[1]poral shifts in communication. When it comes to important decisions, the higher level will often decide first and then communicate - and both the decisionmaking and the communication process can take a long time, during which the subordinate level is kept in the dark or only insufficiently informed due to information asymmetry. It is easy to see that this structural distance between the levels can very easily lead to misunderstandings and even mistrust; in the worst case, each level sees the other as a kind of "black box" where things happen that they cannot see or hear – an open invitation to speculations and activating the rumor mill!

In addition, the asymmetry of decision-making authority and of the information base in hierarchies creates a tendency for individuals on the subordinate level to "look up" to the superiors. Every manager has a natural impulse to be the first to make a good impression on their boss in order to obtain information at an early stage, helping to secure and stabilize their own position or that of their team in the system. This upward management can give the impression that the gap between the levels is well bridged. In reality, however, this leads to the reinforcement of silos in organizations and to more gaps, because information only flows horizontally into the respective silo and information structures are not networked with each other. A lack of collaboration and integration between areas is often the direct result of individualized management within the top levels of the hierarchy, often enough already at the boardroom level.

One-way bridging

It is these asymmetries and gaps that often underlie the complaints mentioned above. This is because the power relationships - power in the sense of decision-making authority and information advantage - create dependencies at the downstream levels. This results in the communication pattern of "announcing" or waiting for this very announcement, which can often be observed between hierarchical levels. For example, in a large production company, a decision on a completely new way of working was announced without any information for the subordinate level on how this decision should be communicated or effectively implemented in the respective areas; this in turn led many managers to wait for further information before taking action.

Many leadership events follow this pattern of management by announcement with staged presentations and glossy slides. It is no wonder that the breaks and joint dinners are often perceived as the most valuable time, because this is when actual conversations take place that do not happen in the formal sessions. Management by announcement is based on the assumption that the higher hierarchical level knows best what the lower level should know and learn. The gap is thus bridged by a one-way street, which reinforces any existing passivity of the subordinate levels and increases frustration on all sides. Another widespread assumption is that the delivery of a message or an announcement is equivalent to getting things done ("we need a clear statement!"). But in cross-hierarchical communication, especially in team and group settings, easily said is far from being done!

Heal the Gap: Creating two-way access

Sustainably bridging and healing gaps or even ruptures between hierarchical levels requires substantive and structural connecting spaces both within and between the levels in order to enable open communication and psychological safety in management bodies. Four aspects of such connections are briefly presented here, and the examples also explain further possibilities.

1. Strengthen cooperation within levels of hierarchy

Good cooperation between the members of a hierarchical level is an important prerequisite for effective cooperation among the subordinate levels. This is why collaboration in the sense of real teamwork is so effective at every level of the hierarchy, starting with the board or top management. For board members or divisional managers, the very idea of being a team is often quite unfamiliar - although it is well known that all downstream employees and teams suffer if their own boss doesn’t get on with the head of another division. Or when there is no real discussion in management committees and meetings primarily serve to share status reports to make one's own area look as good as possible. In fact, connecting the members of a hierarchical level with each other is the best and most effective way to make the gaps between the levels as a whole more visible and to find ways to bridge them. This means that the first step is to close the gaps between individuals by making them feel that they belong to a particular level of the hierarchy and thus assume joint responsibility for this level as a whole.

2. Align on a joint leadership purpose

The development of an honest kind of team spirit can be significantly supported by aligning on a common understanding of roles and of a specific leadership mandate. How unifying is the organizational strategy for top management members? To what extent is there a shared understanding about management responsibility and implementation of this strategy? How fluid is the cooperation, to what ex[1]tent do the meetings reflect a positive culture that is exemplary for the levels below? Next, what role does the divisional management level play in the development and implementation of the strategy? What is the specific leadership role of this level within the overall mission and values of the organization? Not to forget: Which gaps at this level must be taken into account in both directions so that the interaction with the other levels functions optimally? Aligning on these questions in an integrative process cascaded across several levels focuses on the common ground among people in each level of hierarchy while creating a connecting element across the levels. However, a regular annual retrospective and with action points in the management teams are essential for such a leadership purpose to have the desired effect.

3. Place common and unifying goals in the foreground

A shared (leadership) purpose in the sense described shifts the hierarchy from people and roles to content and topics. The overarching element is not a CEO or other boss, but a jointly developed idea and shared values. In the broadest sense, this idea is the purpose, vision or mission of an organization, to which everything is subordinated. If we think of hierarchy in organizations primarily as a level of content, there is room for other types of conversations. There is a "tag" (the higher superior level!) beyond personal sensitivities. The latter do not necessarily disappear as a result, but by focusing on the overarching objective, they are placed in a new framework. Maintaining this framework for the organization and regularly discussing and negotiating its meaning with all levels and areas of the organization is a primary task of good leadership at every level of the hierarchy. If this does not happen, the well-known gaps between the beautiful poster on the wall and the actual everyday life in the company arise - Mind the Gap!

4. Gap Conversations: Address gaps and transitions in teams

While cross-structural and cross-hierarchical con[1]versations between individuals are frequent and quite constructive, conversations between entire levels and teams are usually not given nearly enough time; or they are delegated to informal communication channels such as evening events, during breaks or when traveling together. Of course, informal communication is an essential part of any joyful collaboration. However, in order to work positively with the gap, there is no substitute for systematic discussions in teams. To this end, regular cross-divisional leadership events on a small or large scale have consistently proven their worth because a wide variety of formats can be used to work on open communication with one another. Over time, a natural connection and ability to bridge the gaps between units and levels can develop easily through gap conversations. Like a safety check at the platform edge, leaders and teams can ask themselves: Where are there gaps in the flow of information? Where are there delays? Are there breaks in cross-structural processes? Where is collaboration failing due to unresolved structures or relationships? These are all situations calling for discussions that can lead to new ideas and concrete measures to help heal the gap.

Summary

Hierarchies arise naturally where people work together. They establish order and they also create boundaries. Gaps of all kinds arise at these boundaries - temporal, spatial and procedural. Since we will always have hierarchies and structures in organizations for various reasons, it is important to find ways of working with these boundaries in a positive way. The most important step is to pay attention to the gaps that naturally occur at such boundaries in order to consciously bridge them - Mind the Gap. In order to move from Minding to Healing, it is advisable to cultivate a style of Management by Conversation instead of Management by Announcement – for a culture of open exchange and dialogue in management bodies, i.e. discussions in groups and teams of managers. Gap conversations or aligning on a shared leadership mission are useful steps towards building trust and creating such a culture. This can turn the idea of judgmental and rigid superiority and subordination into a more flexible mindset of order and having a place within a hierarchy that primarily serves the substantive goals of an organization

Sample case: Leadership Team Events as the driver for cross-hierarchical and integrated ways of working

In a medium-sized and internationally active company in the construction industry, external coaches were requested by the internal IT department to support the leadership team meetings of the two top levels with around 50 people. The starting point was an intensive modernization of IT and a rift between the hierarchical levels. This became visible at one of these events through public bottom-up feedback. A further hardening of the gap occurred when there was no concrete response to the feedback. Instead, there was mutual mistrust and accusations.

The first of these conferences followed the announcement pattern. After a short keynote speech by a coach, the participants worked in small groups in a specific time slot. The rest of the time was taken up by presentations, mainly from the top management level. When group work took place, the members of the top management circle generally dominated the conversations. Real interaction only took place during breaks or over dinner. Gradually, however, it was possible to incorporate integrative impulses and small interventions into other parts of the meeting, which were gratefully received by the lower-level managers. Another initiative that helped to break the deadlock was a community (working group) on the topic of culture from the unit head level. The group's main contribution was the creation of several brief keynotes at the joint meetings. By working with the existing corporate values, it was possible to to further open up the conversational space in small cross-hierarchical groups. In contrast to the usual top-down or external moderation, the members of the community led the process in these sessions. Other design elements included systematic feedback in pairs, an exchange on reflection questions with subsequent discussion and summary, to name but a few. The preparation of the meetings became more targeted and holistic by taking up or integrating results from previous meetings. In this way, the meetings became part of a process, which continuously increased the credibility of and interest in the feedback from both sides. In addition, the top managers were briefed before the meetings and were able to agree on their understanding of their role and function as role models in the context of the meeting. This also included, for example, the idea of not just sitting together with their own department heads, but actively seeking out cross-departmental conversations. Over time, the conferences evolved into an interactive and creative event with a high level of exchange. By focusing on the interaction between the top leadership and the unit heads, it was possible to rebuild trust. A key success factor was the con[1]sistent commitment of the top level over the course of a year, both in terms of time and content.

Initiating and strengthening cooperation on hierarchical levels

Initiating bottom-up cooperation In a medium-sized, internationally active company, the top management did not work well with each other but saw the need to develop their mid-level leaders. As a result, the middle management leadership development program was used to develop joint leadership guidelines and present these to the top management at a larger event. Top management thus got involved in a face-saving discussion about leadership and began to reflect on their own leadership behavior. Initiating top-down cooperation In a large international corporation, the divisions of the CFO largely worked in silos in a highly competi[1]tive environment characterized by mistrust. The CFO aimed for a more holistic approach in managing her directs and ordered a new budget process: The divisions were to develop a joint budget that reflected both the individual divisions and their interfaces. This new budget process led to the division managers and their teams beginning to exchange ideas and share knowledge. Mistrust and competition between them were reduced.

Starter questions for Gap Conversations in leadership teams

• How easily are we accessible at the transitions between hierarchical levels as a whole?
• How well do we (as hierarchy levels) understand each other? Do we have the feeling that the other side understands us? Are our messages getting through?
• Are there currently any information and communication gaps?
• What process gaps are there in cooperation across levels (interfaces, handovers)?
• What current changes promote or impair cooperation and exchange between our levels?

Excursion: Beyond the top levels

In larger organizations, mid-level hierarchies can involve a great number of people, making direct work with this level time-consuming or cumbersome. Sometimes it can be helpful to start the process by using ideas from within the organization for improving cooperation within or between the hierarchy levels. It is also essential to involve the employee level once the leadership tasks have been clarified. In these situations, a variation of the entangled trios according to Dave Snowden is a good idea. Three people from different levels and areas form a triad for a certain period of time. The task for the triad in this context could be, for example, to develop new ideas for better cooperation across levels or to develop cross-divisional or cross-hierarchical innovations. It is important to embed this in an overall process, starting with a clear assignment and voluntary collaboration in the triads all the way through to reflection on the results and implementation of at least some of the proposals. The exchange in the triads creates new connections and opportunities for barrier-free dialog across hierarchical boundaries, provided that collaboration within the levels is sustained.