Manage the Boundaries

The text explores the concept of boundaries in both nature and organizational settings. Using examples like the desert squill and organizational roles, it highlights the need for flexibility and dialogue in managing boundaries. By showcasing real-world examples, it argues for boundaries as dynamic tools that adapt to changing needs, enhancing collaboration and effectiveness. #boundaries, #flexibility, #collaboration, #organization, #nature, #dynamictools, #effectiveness

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Welcome to the Coleg Experience Podcast. In this episode, we delve into bold insights,

(00:10):
experimentation, and groundbreaking leadership strategies. Today, we're exploring the dynamic
world of boundary management in organizations where flexibility and adaptability can transform
roles and responsibilities into collaborative powerhouses. Let's dive in.
There are moments in the year when something in the landscape, in the light or in the air,

(00:34):
suddenly brings us back to thoughts about boundaries. It might be a seasonal flower
that appears without warning or just a feeling of transition between periods. Take the desert
squill, for example. It's always amazing to see how at the height of the dry season,
even before a single rain shower moistened the ground, it emerges and grows and blooms

(00:56):
as if challenging the conventions of nature. In school, they explain to us that it sends
down such deep roots and is so hard to uproot that it serves to mark boundaries between
territories. Kind of strange, isn't it? How a plant that's invisible above ground most
of the year can serve as a boundary marker? When they said the same thing about the prickly

(01:17):
pear cactus, it sounded more believable. You can see how the large, thorny cactus that
doesn't disappear for more than 10 months of the year could be a border guard. On the
other hand, who said boundaries always need guarding? Boundaries. In the organizational
world, the word boundary usually serves in the meaning of border, a line that must not

(01:40):
be crossed. One of the classic organizational metaphors is the boundary between the areas
of responsibility and roles of different people or departments. You know that situation where
someone enters a new position and is supposed to inherit an area of responsibility from
someone else. But the previous person doesn't really leave. They continue to interfere,

(02:05):
to decide, to get into the details. And the feeling. Stepping on toes. In other words,
there's a boundary between them and it's been crossed. Classical management, which
is very troubled by the situation where things fall between the cracks, but also very anxious
about stepping on toes, is very busy with questions of roles and responsibilities. Definitions

(02:29):
of areas of responsibility, race-eye matrices and other concepts and techniques from this
genre. We think it's generally positive that people know what their area of responsibility
is, know what is and isn't expected of them and that they define clear interfaces as
much as possible with their partners in getting things done. Where does the problem begin?

(02:53):
The problem is that behind the discussions about defining areas of responsibility stands
a wish, not to say fantasy, that the areas of responsibility that will be defined will
be fixed and clear from now until further notice. If you will, that it will be possible
to plant desert squills between them or prickly pears, depending on your style. Where does

(03:16):
this aspiration come from? Sometimes it's related to the wish that the system will work
like a well-oiled machine, that you can define once how it should work and it will already
know how to replicate that without interruption. We've already dealt with this metaphor fantasy
here before. Sometimes it's related to our desire to ensure that no one steps on our

(03:39):
toes. In this sense, a racy discussion is the human equivalent of the habit of dogs
and other animals to urinate around their territory. And sometimes it belongs to the
realms of difficulty with changes and moving the cheese, so it's no wonder that in many
cases the organizing metaphor for relationships between different people and organizational

(04:02):
units is boundary. What comes to mind when we think of boundary? Boundary is a concept
we know well from the political world. What separates between countries is a border. How
do you move a border? Usually through war. And whoever crosses the border often finds
themselves beyond enemy lines. State borders are also connected to the identity and history

(04:28):
of the state, so countries will be willing to fight and pay a high price to keep their
borders in place. Many times when we talk about boundaries and organizational situations,
we load these meanings into the content. In parentheses, let's say it might have been
good if we had found a Hebrew alternative to the word boundary that isn't border. In

(04:53):
English, border and boundary have somewhat different meanings. Border is used mainly
in the sense of clear separation between very distinct elements, while boundary refers to
a division that can't necessarily be marked with clear lines, close parentheses. When
talking about organizations, boundaries don't need to be defended. Boundaries need to be

(05:16):
managed. Organizational boundaries aren't meant to separate. They're meant to facilitate
and make work more efficient. But they can't be static. On the contrary, they must be dynamic
and move all the time according to different needs and situations. It's possible and
also important to define them. But not as a one-time event, rather as something that

(05:40):
requires ongoing dialogue and updating. When someone steps on your toes, they're not necessarily
starting a war to change the location of the boundary. It could be that the original definition
of territorial boundaries doesn't suit them in the current situation. Before you mobilize
the reserves to defend the boundaries, you can talk. You can understand why the other

(06:04):
side thinks there's room for different conduct than what was defined. For this to succeed,
there needs to be a way to talk about these issues. Therefore, when defining territorial
boundaries, interfaces, or processes, it's no less important, in the same breath, to
define how to manage the movement of the boundary, so that it will be flexible enough and won't

(06:27):
lead to unnecessary battles and wars. Let us share two examples from our consulting
work that illustrate this dynamic approach to boundaries. We worked with a large media
agency where the creative team and the account management team were constantly at odds. The
initial boundary definition was clear. Creatives develop concepts and campaigns, account managers

(06:51):
handle client relationships and execution. But in practice, clients would call creatives
directly with feedback, and account managers would make creative suggestions during presentations.
Instead of defending these rigid boundaries, we helped them establish regular boundary
check meetings. They created a simple process where either team could propose boundary adjustments

(07:16):
based on specific client needs or project requirements. The result was much smoother
collaboration and better client outcomes, because the boundary could flex when a particular
client preferred direct creative contact, or when an account manager had valuable creative
insights. In another case, we worked with a traditional manufacturing company where the

(07:40):
engineering and production departments had well-established territorial boundaries.
Workers designed products and handed them off to production, who manufactured them according
to specifications. But when the company started developing more complex products with shorter
development cycles, this rigid handoff was creating delays and quality issues. Production

(08:02):
workers often had insights that could improve the design, but there was no mechanism for
this feedback to reach engineering during the design phase. Rather than maintaining
the traditional boundary, we helped them create flexible collaboration zones where
engineers and production staff could work together during critical design phases. They established

(08:22):
criteria for when to activate these collaborative periods and how to manage the temporary boundary
shifts. This led to better products, faster development times, and higher job satisfaction
for both teams. The key insight from both examples is that boundaries serve the work,
not the other way around. When we treat boundaries like territorial borders that must be defended

(08:47):
at all costs, we often end up fighting the wrong battles. When we treat them as tools
that can be adjusted to serve the organization's goals, we create more effective and more satisfying
ways of working together. This doesn't mean boundaries should be completely fluid or
undefined. Clear boundaries provide important structure and clarity, but they should be

(09:13):
living agreements that can evolve as circumstances change rather than fixed walls that people
either respect or violate. The most successful organizations we've worked with don't just
define boundaries once during an organizational design process. They build ongoing conversations

(09:33):
about boundaries into their regular operations. They create forums where people can raise
questions about whether current boundaries are serving the work effectively. They develop
criteria for when boundary adjustments might be needed and processes for making those adjustments
collaboratively. This approach requires a fundamental shift in how we think about organizational

(09:58):
structure. Instead of seeing boundaries as permanent features of the organizational landscape,
we need to see them as agreements between people that can and should be revisited as
the work evolves. It also requires different skills from leaders and team members. Instead
of just knowing how to defend your territory, you need to know how to have productive conversations

(10:20):
about whether the current territorial arrangements are working. Instead of seeing boundary crossing
as necessarily problematic, you need to be able to distinguish between helpful boundary
flexibility and genuinely problematic boundary violations. This shift isn't always easy,
especially for people who have spent their careers in more traditional organizational

(10:44):
structures, but the alternative, defending static boundaries in an increasingly dynamic
world, leads to organizational rigidity and conflict that serves no one well. The desert
squill teaches us something important here. It thrives not because it has permanent above-ground
presence, but because it has deep, flexible root systems that allow it to emerge when conditions

(11:08):
are right. Perhaps our organizational boundaries should be more like this. Grounded in deep,
shared understanding of purpose and values, but flexible enough to emerge in different
configurations as circumstances change. And that's the end of today's podcast.

(11:32):
We've explored how viewing boundaries as evolving agreements can foster collaboration
and improve outcomes in organizations, just like the desert squill reminds us of nature's
unseen boundaries. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode with your
friends and colleagues, so they can also stay updated on the latest news and gain powerful

(11:54):
insights. Stay tuned for more updates.