The organisations followed the generally accepted management mantra that the way to achieve organisational success was to hire (at almost any price) the most talented individuals available. The banking sector was awash with exceptional individual talent. This was shown to be the case in the financial sectors of many countries prior to the 2007 financial crash. Silo organizations seem to have been specifically designed to prevent natural adaptation.Īn abundance of brilliance leading to Collective StupidityĮven groups that exhibit an abundance of individual brilliance, but who suffer from Silo Mentality, can often exhibit collective stupidity. It is not just that organisational cultures become resistant to change. As the cause of the crisis usually seems to originate elsewhere, managers rarely feel able to proactively prevent crises from reoccurring in the future. This means that many organizations are doomed to continually invoke Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong at the worst possible moment, over and over again.” Despite the unsatisfactory nature of this arrangement changes are often still resisted, either openly or covertly.Įven if managers did have time to spare, very often the critical problems seem to be caused by other people or groups “not doing their job properly”. In these organisations managers seem to expend significant time fire-fighting, which leaves little time to address the causes of problems. However, once the meeting is over, they are overcome with apathy and do little until they attend the next meeting. It sometimes seems as though people are quite prepared to continually attend meetings, have their say, and make the appropriate comments. It is not unusual for managers to complain that it can be like “pulling teeth” to encourage ownership of collective goals. In a Silo culture, managers often struggle to engage people in collaborating to implement vital changes. The apparent culture of lack of ownership They see no incentive to make their own changes in order to solve another’s problem. In this culture everyone is making decisions based on their own local context and personal requirements. Silo Mentality in organisations encourages localized, disconnected decision-making. Many other chronic organisational problems are a direct consequence of the Silo effect. What are the consequences of Silo Mentality? This suggests there are things about the way an organisation operates that either encourages or discourages this mindset. However, some organisations are far more successful than others in eliminating it than others. Human characteristics certainly contribute to this mindset. Silo Mentality in business is so common that it is assumed to be a fundamental problem of human nature, and thus viewed as yet another element managers must manage. With this mindset, people have little interest in understanding their part in the success of the organisation as a whole. Silo Mentality in the workplace occurs when people specifically conclude that it is not their responsibility to coordinate their activities with peers or other groups.
Similar terms with the same meaning are: Silo Thinking and Silo Vision The definition of Silo Mentality is a mindset that occurs in organisations, which is inward looking and resists sharing information and resources with other people or departments within the organisation.
0 kommentar(er)
