In these days of soundbites and the
pervasive creep of vacuous management speak into news and the media
generally we have become familiar with the use of the expression
“frontline services” as a way of making a distinction between
those deemed important and the also rans. I have always said that
this expression is a divisive falsehood and the recent débâcle at
Natwest is very much testament to that.
At its heart the notion of “frontline
services” seeks to draw a distinction about the relative importance
and centrality of particular functions within an organisation,
generally seeking to pretend that there will be no impact if we
decimate the “back office”. It seeks to assign differing value to
functions and to create the impressions that the individual parts of
the organisation exist in isolation and can easily exist without one
another. This is a foolish and simplistic notion of how organisations
are constituted and operate, but is popular because, if we accept it,
then it makes it both possible and acceptable to outsource, downsize
and sideline components and treat organisations like machines rather
than a much more complex body. As someone once remarked you cannot
divide a horse in the way you can a machine – you just get a bloody
mess.
The term “frontline” has a
militaristic tone but in that context it simply describes where the
edges of the conflict exist. Sensible generals have understood that
wars cannot be won at the front line alone. It wasn't for nothing
that Napoleon reputedly said an army marches on its stomach or that
dig for victory has such enduring resonance.
In a business context the perpetuation
of this notion of relative value has corrosive and dangerous
possibilities with functions being variously described as
“operational” “administrative” “non-core” and other
euphemisms that permit them to be ignored, downgraded and generally
de motivated.
I distinctly remember discussing with
the partner of a professional services firm their head count and his
casual unthinking reference to “people”, meaning fee earners and
a class of “non-people” meaning everyone else.
Drawing these false distinctions is
fundamentally unwise, and wholly inappropriate in a social business.
A social business recognises that each element has an integral role
to play, and requires a voice. Interestingly the balance and mutual
dependence of elements in an organisation are embodied in frameworks
like 7s, its is just sad that these are often used to divide rather
than unite.
This does not mean that every section
or department or division is the same. Nor does it mean that they all
require the same depth of skills or that the expertise and competence
required in each is the same or as easily replaced.
But it does point up that organisations
are not simplistic machines easily divided or neglected without
unpredictable and damaging outcomes. The experience of RBS and
Natwest underline the centrality of what would often be described as
“non frontline” services and how neglecting and side lining these
can have catastrophic consequences.
