Stopping the Silo Effect
In every association I have worked at, departmental structure determined who you met and worked with on a daily basis: for example, the marketing team held meetings together, meeting services worked on their project plans, etc. And even though departmental representatives met during Senior Team meetings, this organizational structure created silos and hindered interdepartmental collaboration. Being a member of the chapters’ team, I ran into this problem frequently since my volunteers worked with many of the departments. Currently, my team works with the Presidents while other teams work with committee chairs – my team doesn’t have communication with the chairs and vice- versa. I’ve learned that there’s nothing worse than having your volunteers know about a staff or board decision before you do.
Recently, I’ve tried to envision how the silos can be minimized so that the volunteers and chapter team works at its optimum level. I’ve met with department leads for chapters in order to obtain more information on how they do their jobs. This information will then be compared with other associations which ultimately will be included in an analysis of our association’s approach to chapter management. I will share this information with the other teams’ leads and have discussions on how our teams can work together. Afterwards, I hope to hold quarterly meetings with key staff to discuss progress made and opportunities for further engagement. I’m undecided on social activities with the group, as this may seem juvenile. I’m interested to see how well this approach works, as it has the possibility of rapidly improving our program.
How has your association dealt with silos?
| | Permalink |
Comments
By ignoring them? Kidding.
In a very small way, the communications department (where is am housed) now includes the web content coordinator in our biweekly dept. meetings (she is in the MIS dept). But people in the communications field have an advantage because we understand how important it is to talk across the association. It is my job every day to work with all departments w/in the association.
Some of us here were talking about a related topic the other day and I think what it boils down to is educating people across the association that what they do matters to a lot of people and is related to other things happening in other departments. Think of journalism 101. We were taught to have an angle. Give them all the angles.
Silos are formed when we get caught up in the minutia. But if we take a look at 10 thousand feet and 30 thousand feet, it is a whole new perspective.
Posted by: Sarah Lawler | December 8, 2008 4:11 PM
Any organizing unit can be come a silo if it represents the only way people gather, interact, share information, collaborate, etc.
The key is to interrupt the natural patterns and boundaries that form through structures that do serve a useful purpose: cross-functional efforts, diversified project teams, rotating job responsibilities, shifting office layouts, staff meeting reports by project versus department are just a few simple strategies to consider.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | December 9, 2008 12:50 PM
My favorite author Patrick Lencioni has a book about Silos, and the short answer he gives is having clear strategy, which I think resonates with the comments above. Without really clear strategic guides, you focus on getting your own department's work done. Clear strategy almost by definition will give silos a reason to talk and collaborate. It's not the only thing you need to break down silos but it's a big one.
Posted by: Jamie Notter | December 9, 2008 2:02 PM
When I was VP Communications and Member Services at MACPA, my teams were encouraged to create and use cross function teams.
We held editorial meetings with reps from almost all the major departments. Helped us to know what was going on across the association, helped us to get more done with less effort - and created a fuller picture for our members.
We also used cross department teams for creating the action plan for the strategic plan. EX: Even though obviously the GR folks needed to be involved in their initiative, the cross selection helped round out perspectives and fueled richer approaches.
Staff enjoyed learning across departments. Helped them to understand how they fit in the big picture better - and made their jobs seem more important.
Posted by: Cynthia D'Amour | December 18, 2008 3:24 PM
One of the reoccuring debates over in the components side is whether there should be stand-alone departments or if chapters and SIGs etc. should be within other departments -- for precisely the reasons mentioned in your posting. Either can work - and what I've seen make it work in both camps is a shared vision that chapter leaders are partners in serving the member. Its really another way of underscoring the point Jamie is making. Too often we don't consider chapters as people or as a strategic partner for our members. So bravo to you Katie for looking at options and hope to follow along your journey.
One interesting source for valuable info on this topic will come from ASAE's next planned study that looks at the impact of local geographic organizational membership on the decision to join the national group. They are still gathering association participants so jump in.
Posted by: Peggy Hoffman | December 19, 2008 8:27 AM