Building Trios

TL;DR

• Hierarchical structures and siloing present in typical organizations
• Benefits of having numerous horizontal connections instead of just hierarchy, and "trios" as the minimum unit to satisfy this
• "Impact" as an example of an evaluation system that provides motivation for increasing horizontal connections

Introduction

The icon turning into 🍣 was random, but if anyone wants to go for 🍣, let's definitely go.

Recently, I've been interested in organizational forms such as network organizations, dynamic organizations, and organisms, and I'd like to write a bit about my thoughts on them.
References are listed at the end.

Connections Other Than the Company's Hierarchical Structure

What is the organizational structure of the organization you, the readers, belong to?
Most organizations likely follow a hierarchy—headed by a president, followed by general managers, department managers, section managers, assistant managers, or whatever the titles may be.
Note that while I used the word "hierarchy," I am referring to the pure meaning of the word without any specific connotations often associated with the katakana term in Japanese.

On the other hand, how many connections do you have beyond that?
How often have you experienced a situation where a problem could have been solved just by asking Person A on the neighboring team?
Have you ever felt that you had to do a task yourself because you couldn't get permission to use Person B's time, even though the work would have been finished faster if requested of them?
This is the phenomenon known as siloing, and it can occur for various reasons.

Causes of Siloing

Since you can find plenty of information about this by searching, I won't write much, but as an example, siloing progresses rapidly as soon as budgets or KPIs are set for each department.
It's natural for the motivation to increase one's own department's sales to kick in rather than doing work for another department. This is an unavoidable and logical consequence of the system.

Organizations with Many Horizontal Connections

Compared to siloing, when an organization with many horizontal connections is achieved, the issues mentioned earlier can be resolved.
Whether or not approval from a supervisor is required is another matter, but if there is someone knowledgeable about a certain topic, it's ideal to be able to resolve issues through collaboration between members by asking that person, regardless of their department.
Here, the reason for specifying "many" horizontal connections is that it's not enough for just a few people to be close friends; that only means the connection is "strong," not "many."
The goal is to have "many" relationships within the company where people are somewhat friendly, have a work-related connection, or can request work from each other.

There's no need to be close enough to go out together on holidays; "weak ties"—relationships where you occasionally chat and say, "By the way, what was that again?"—are the best.

In such an organization, the amount of work that can be resolved within that structure increases.
Some organizations use slogans like "One [Something]" ^[1], and I believe these are aimed at achieving this kind of organization.
However, as I will mention later, simply shouting slogans doesn't lead to or sustain motivation, so it is necessary to establish an evaluation system that supports it.

I believe this state of an organization—one with many horizontal connections—is what is expressed by terms like network organization or dynamic organization.
As my own original metaphor, I think "non-woven fabric" (the kind used in masks) is a good fit.
The smallest units of non-woven fabric are fibers that aren't very long, but the way they randomly and complexly intertwine to form the "fabric" of the organizational body feels consistent with what I'm explaining.

Additionally, I believe that having many such connections already in place creates benefits when the organizational structure is changed.
When a structure changes, someone who was on your team might move to a different department, perhaps shifting roles to something like sales vs. engineering.
Even if direct work-related involvement decreases, having a relationship where you can "briefly ask" about a certain technical matter makes the ease of work vastly different.
Whether it's a matter of tradition or not, it seems those at the top suffer from a "disease" of wanting to change organizational structures every few years, but if there are many horizontal connections, the likelihood of being able to adapt to such changes immediately increases.

Create Trios

And so, this brings us back to the title of this post. When I think about the minimum unit or minimum goal to achieve this, it comes down to creating "trios."
If you have two pairs of close friends, and the person acting as the mediator or "hub" in the center leaves, no relationship remains between the remaining two people.
On the other hand, if you have two trios, even if the person who acted as the mediator leaves, a relationship still exists between at least the remaining two people in each of the two groups.
Furthermore, there remains the possibility that new connections will be born among the remaining members.

two member group v.s. three member group

It’s almost like a pyramid scheme, but connecting connections—having a mechanism exactly like the internet—leads to enhancing the latent problem-solving capabilities of the organization, independent of its hierarchy.
As a side effect, since it's not just a pair, the content of the conversations takes on a slightly more public feel, or rather, communication happens under the premise that it is shared with other members.
While it shouldn't happen anyway, if we can communicate in trios as much as possible, it's also beneficial in terms of preventing things like sexual harassment or power harassment.
The 1-on-1s I have conducted were in a 1-on-2 or 2-on-1 format with two mentors, and even for things that might normally be sent in a private chat, I would sometimes send them to a group chat of three people for the purpose of sharing information.

I have seen policies like randomly forming trios of completely unrelated people and telling them to go out for a meal, but while they did communicate for the occasion, I don't think it lasted very long.
Let me show some examples of how to build these connections and how I have built them when reflecting on my own actions.

• Someone asked me about a matter I'm not very familiar with (let's call them E).
• I know that Person F is knowledgeable about this.

In this situation, two patterns are possible: I ask Person F and relay the content to Person E, or I open a three-person chat with myself, Person E, and Person F.

• I ask Person F and relay the content to Person E
  In a position often described as "weaponizing information asymmetry," you would choose the former. For Person E, although they get the answer, they have to ask me every time.
  Information cannot be obtained without asking me, thereby maintaining my status, position, and raison d'être in the organization.

• I open a three-person chat with myself, Person E, and Person F
  If the latter is chosen, a trio is born there.
  By acting as a mediator and connecting Person E and Person F, even if I am gone one day, that connection remains as an organizational asset.
  Even if done somewhat abruptly, this works as long as there is an underlying cultivation of an overall atmosphere and culture where it's okay to suddenly strike up a conversation.

create trio

How to Evaluate

I think I've conveyed that having many horizontal connections is a good thing. Next, we must consider how to evaluate this. As I mentioned in the section on siloing, considering that humans act with a certain degree of intent, we must make it clear that having many horizontal connections is a good thing and something that will be evaluated positively.

One of the evaluation criteria at Microsoft Japan where I worked (and it's the same across Microsoft worldwide) is Impact. The term "Impact" is mentioned in articles such as "The 'Amazing Evaluation System' of Microsoft, which recorded its highest stock price in history" and "Microsoft Japan's 'Work Style Reform' toward an 'Impact-Oriented Organization'".^[2] Internally, it's used in phrases like "impact on others" or "what kind of impact was received from others."

This is not used in the general sense of "being impacted" or "being moved," but rather in a narrower sense. Specifically, it could be creating a document and sharing it so others can reuse it, or vice versa—really anything—but the important point is that connections between members are built into the evaluation criteria. It might be a bit hard to understand, but I've tried to illustrate how multiple connections between members involve giving and receiving impact.

give impact each other

Many young members in companies often set goals like "Research something, create a document, and present it by [month]," but the question is, what is the objective? If you view the same goal based on Impact, it becomes work based on collaboration with other members—such as reusing someone else's materials or updating them to the latest content. On the other hand, if Impact is not the basis, it might just look like an exercise in creating documents, practicing presentations, or practicing research. While I feel the visual representation might be a bit weak, here is a diagram intended to show how the same task becomes a premise for collaboration when based on Impact.

same task but for impact

It may indeed be a somewhat fuzzy and vague metric, but regardless, the message conveyed by the evaluation criteria—that the frequency and strength of collaboration with other members are evaluated—is significant. In organizations where collaboration isn't common, such actions might be looked at with skepticism, but if you know it's evaluated, it becomes a clear advantage. While there are KPIs for each organization, there are also ways to input man-hours for helping with other members' work, so it's designed so that you don't lose out in numerical evaluations like utilization rates. ^[3]

What Kind of Organization Can Aim for a Network Organization?

While I have proposed the network organization as an ideal structure or method of organizational development, honestly, I feel it is difficult to sustain unless it is a professional group like The Avengers or Public Security Section 9 in Ghost in the Shell.
For new graduates or junior members, the "take" part is far too large compared to what they can "give." Consequently, they may find it difficult to make requests or feel hesitant, making it highly likely they will struggle to blend into this kind of organization.
I feel this is something that needs to be addressed through a different approach to organizational development.

What is Hierarchy in a Network Organization?

This might be redundant, or perhaps something I'll write about in another article, but in an organizational body with high self-solving capabilities like a network organization, we need to consider what roles hierarchies—such as supervisors and managers—should fulfill.
As a simple conclusion, I think a role that isn't too controlling—something like human nerves or a liaison from the upper management—would be ideal, but I'll write more about that some other time.
For now, my opinion is that in organizations of a certain size, a hierarchy is necessary not for control, but as a path for information transmission, rather than being completely flat.

Summary

Reading books while reflecting on my experience working at Microsoft Japan, I've realized that creating "trios" was the key—something I did unintentionally, but it worked very well.
As your connections grow, you receive more work opportunities, and the fact that the problems you can solve (including through your connections) increase exponentially leads to a sense of empowerment.
Having recently changed jobs, my connections have decreased significantly, but based on this reflection, I'm thinking it might be good to build connections more strategically.

References

The Amazon links do not have affiliate tags, so please feel free to check them out.

• Soshiki "Soshiki to iu Yukitai" no Design: 28 no Vocabulary (Organization: Designing the "Organizational Organism" - 28 Vocabularies) - Yoshinori Yokoyama (Author)

https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4478024162

---

Update log

• Changed internal file paths for images - 2024/07/14

脚注

1. Like One Microsoft or One Mizuho, I guess.

2. I haven't read the content thoroughly, so I apologize if the context is slightly different. I feel the Diamond Online article mostly matches what I want to say.

3. Eventually, as this kind of horizontal collaboration increases, a sense of "mutual support" grows to the point where such management becomes a hassle, and the atmosphere becomes one where it doesn't matter who does whose work.