I recently wrote a post on the expensive gamble of and impact of connector roles in data science. Read more. That article focused on the structural and economic issues that connector roles create for your business. This includes increased costs, bureaucracy, poorer communication, and barriers to building data-driven cultures.
However, those are not the only problems connector roles create. Leadership’s use of connectors, while well-intentioned, may inadvertently sow seeds of discord within the company culture. In fact, the very presence of these positions in the org chart could dilute the teamwork and mutual understanding leadership is fighting to create. This week, we’re going to focus on the unintended impact of connector roles on company culture.
The Disconnection Dilemma
Leadership often needs to make decisions quickly and can’t spend time iterating with analysts to get the right information. I’ve been in that position and understand the pressure. The connector role seems like an elegant solution to this problem. You simply hire someone as a liaison between technical analyst teams and decision-focused business leads.
For lower-level staff, however, the connector solution can lead to a sense of disconnect from leadership. Routing communication and decision-making through a connector role reduces the interactions between leaders and the broader team.
Introducing the connector position increases the hierarchical distance between organizational layers. This can erode the foundational trust and rapport between levels, leaving employees feeling excluded and undervalued.
Leadership’s Arm’s Length Strategy
Staff might also view leadership reliance on connectors as an attempt to distance themselves from day-to-day decisions. Leadership may appear to staff less like decisive and engaged visionaries. They may also appear as having less direct accountability to the team.
The problem with this message is that it is the very foundation for building the ivory tower that breeds cynicism. The C-Suite appears disinterested in the granular, yet crucial, insights that analytic teams develop. However, executives may attempt to maintain control over how teams approach their work. When these two appearances collide in staff perceptions, leadership’s legitimacy in the organization will suffer.
To be fair, if the organization is large enough, it may not be feasible for leadership to engage in more granular decision-making. However, in these cases, leadership must allow lower-level management latitude to organize and direct teams as needed.
The Bottleneck Effect
Another critical concern is the potential for decision-making bottlenecks. Incorporating connectors as an additional layer into the communication and approval process inevitably lengthens the timeline for decision-making.
Delays are costly when agility and speed are necessary for executing strategic decisions. The time required for connectors to translate and convey questions and then back-translate analytic results into strategies can be lengthy. Add in more time for clarification inquiries and follow-up questions, and the results will often be missed opportunities.
Ultimately, organizations are only as nimble as their ability to make decisions. If you are competing on analytics, then additional layers of bureaucracy might allow your competition to gain the advantage. Read more about how your competition might be winning with organization-wide analytics training.
Undermining Internal Talent and Morale
Perhaps one of the most demoralizing impact of connector roles is the signal it sends to the existing staff. External hires signal that the leadership has voted “No Confidence” in existing staff to fill the role.
Staff may feel that leadership doesn’t see any suitable internal candidates to develop. This can stifle ambition and innovation, as employees might see their opportunities for advancement are constrained.
Furthermore, staff may develop a culture of dependence and isolationism after being forced to work through intermediaries. Rather than building connections with other units and developing broader capabilities, staff are taught to “stay in their lane.”
Rethinking the Connector Role
Given these considerations, it’s imperative for business leaders to rethink the reliance on connector roles. This does not imply a complete abandonment of the concept but rather a strategic realignment.
Leaders should foster a culture of direct engagement and open communication channels between all levels of the organization. Investing in learning and development programs to enhance the analytical literacy of business leaders and the business acumen of analytics teams can mitigate the need for connectors.
This approach not only eliminates the middleman but also empowers all team members. It enriches the organization’s talent pool and fosters a more cohesive and agile business environment.
Conclusion
Overall, connector roles may seem like a good idea on paper. However, they can have serious unintended negative consequences on company culture. Before embracing these hires, leadership must ensure they won’t create more problems than they solve.
Alternatively, leadership can choose a path that may require more short-term effort but gain more long-term success. Organizations embracing a culture of engagement, learning, and respect can navigate the complexities of business analytics more effectively.
This path involves leaders stepping closer to the data and analytics teams elevating their business understanding to promote insightful decision-making. This strategic pivot, from reliance on connectors to a model of integrated collaboration and learning, will not only enhance decision-making but also reinforce a positive, dynamic company culture.
