The Need for Organisational Resilience - Chapter 4

decisions or exercise any autonomy that would enable them to deviate from what is being

prescribed. Such geniuses are rare and few in management, and when they exist (e.g. Steve

Jobs) their successes may turn them into insensitive strategisers, indulging in and

pressurised by their expected infallibility, careering headlong into dogmatism and disaster.

There is only so much we can expect from those rare individuals. What we cannot expect is

that they are always ‘right’ in the what, why and how.

Limitations of Accountability

Accountability is defined as the obligation of individuals to account for their own actions and

accept responsibility for the outcome of those actions. In centralising working, this implies

compliance: obeying an order, rule, or request. There lies the problem. The willingness of a

follower to spend time and energy on actions is dependent on a belief – the what and the

why – defined by a leader. Hence, belief in the message or the messenger is paramount. If

one does not have faith in the order, rule, or request or in the messenger who conveys such

rule, order, or request, commitment to act in the best interest of the organisation is easily

undermined.

This erosion of commitment is also fuelled by a degree of disempowerment and lack of

direct influence on one’s individual objective. For the former, receiving an order, rule, or

request tends to perceived as a deprivation of power and interest. The latter refers to the

‘blame’ attributed to the one that provides order, rule and request that turns out to be

‘wrong’. As a consequence, centralisation – by default – undermines commitment to carry

out an order, rule or request for the greater good of the organisation.

Intent instead of Tasks

Under a decentralised way of working, people are helped to acquire the skills and

capabilities to work independently, show initiative and improvise if necessary. This does not

mean that autonomous working is encouraged without any form of alignment. In the armed

forces, all over the world, the concept of intent is defined as a mechanism that provides

purposeful direction which people are committed to. In other words, an intent does not only

consist of the ‘What to do’ but also provides meaning in the sense of ‘Why’ and boundaries

for ‘How’.

Klein (1999, 225) describes seven types of information deemed crucial to convey an

intent.

The purpose of the task (the higher level goals). It provides the ‘bigger picture’,

conveying an understanding of a broad vision of aspirations and goals.

22 | P a g e