Growing a team or reorganising an institutional structure is often seen as the solution to a set of challenges. But it’s only a solution when seen through our (largely) western reductionist lens, which requires us to disaggregate the problem, find the parts that are broken, fix them, and put everything back together again. In the workplace this perspective results in hierarchical organisational charts, training programmes, reams of policies – and restructures.

Rarely is the problem adequately defined nor understood and so we end up addressing the wrong thing with the wrong intervention – the worst of all worlds. However, the restructure, policy or new training initiative is a compelling solution from this reductionist perspective. What happens then is that those who have these interventions imposed on them recognise they are seen as part of the problem. As we saw in the last article, these are so often our middle managers. You are commanded to embrace the restructure (for the good of the organisation), advocate for the new policy and oversee its implementation (don’t question its viability), attend the training programme (don’t show up as a prisoner).

Clearly my thesis here is that organisations high in social capital are better placed to achieve their mission and objectives than ones with low social capital; in addition, I suggest that social capital is a fragile strength, like trust – hard to build, easy to destroy. Perhaps, instead of assuming growth or restructuring is the answer, we might first start by inquiring into the value of social capital in our organisations or groups.  

Social capital can be fragile to create, requiring an investment of time and energy, investments that are not readily quantified.  Instead we assume that meetings can achieve this; the reality is a chat over a drink at the end of work, on your own dime, does more. Yet it can be so easily destroyed. A range of actions, however well intentioned, can break these bonds, including high staff turnover; poor management; fixation on individual targets; blanket policies; overwhelm; restructures; timesheets; poor strategy; lack of clear purpose. These are all issues we can attend to. At the heart of all of them is collaboration. The more important collaboration is to the success of an organisation, the more important is the level of social capital. 

Looking at an organisation as a network, and applying a systems lens (as opposed to a reductionist one), can offer some insights as to why that is and what we might do differently as a result. We might ask ourselves a different set of questions rather than reaching straight for the restructuring lever:

• What if our actions helped us build the social capital necessary for the organisation to achieve its objectives? 
• Can we spot if our actions start to destroy it?
• What might we do to reduce staff turnover? What are the real causes of it?
• Where might we see conflicting incentives?  
• If we act to reduce staff turnover and reward collaboration what does that do to social capital? 
• If we think a problem is best solved by introducing a new policy, how might it affect social capital? 
• Can we test a new policy with minimal guidance and let the practice of implementing it inform which guidelines might be necessary?

We’ve seen this all too often in recent years in the debate over hybrid working. There remains a desire to standardise the institutional reposes to an issue or challenge that lies beyond standardisation. This inability to accommodate variety is what leads to actions or events deemed ‘organisational failure’. Not because anyone has wilfully violated policy, but because where a blunt policy forms a barrier to getting the job done done people are left with little choice but to figure out work-arounds. If you impose a blanket new policy you have to police its adherence through a new compliance regime, adding still more to management overheads. If instead you experiment a little with it you can determine its likely impact and adjust course accordingly. 

Relationships are one of the primary hidden forces within organisations and across systems, so often seen as an add-on to the job, not a core part of it. When we talk of a change initiative failing, or the challenges we face shifting systems, or barriers to change more broadly, we’re often obliquely referring to the lack of social capital, even if we don’t know it. Perhaps if we focused on creating and maintaining social capital, rather than the practically simpler fixes of adding new staff or reorganising existing ones, we might see more change initiatives succeed – or fewer required in the first place.