Trending
I’m old enough to remember a time before the call centre.
In my early years at work, customers used to be able to call me direct, or were passed to me by a single receptionist.
When management said that local offices would no longer be able to field their own calls, but would instead receive them from a centralised call centre, there were two distinct reactions.
- The older colleagues worried that this would lead to them losing their jobs, as they were now surplus to requirements.
- The younger ones, including me at the time, thought this was a genius idea. We swallowed the management line that this was about modernising our industry. It would be better for customer service, much more efficient and would make our jobs more enjoyable.
We were all wrong.
No-one lost their job, they just began to lose autonomy. Their priorities began to be dictated from elsewhere.
Customers did not see any improvement in service, they just found it harder to deal with the organisation. Getting to speak to who they wanted to speak to was deliberately being made more difficult.
Centralisation is the best way to dumb down your people.
Imagine you’re a skilled craftsperson suddenly forced to follow strict instructions, use standardised tools, and adhere to a rigid process. You can no longer choose the best materials or adapt your techniques based on your expertise. You’re allocated time slots with each of your customers to optimise your productivity. Your performance is judged solely on quantity, not quality.
This loss of autonomy will be demoralising, leading to decreased motivation, reduced job satisfaction, and lower quality of work. It can increase stress as there’s no room for creativity or individual expression.
The enemy of innovation is the management desire to centralise everything.
Centralisation is often touted as being more efficient but it’s nothing of the sort. In truth it is a simply a corporate power grab, an attempt to control, to conform, to standardise.
As Pim de Morree says on LinkedIn
↳ Centralising everything fails in dynamic markets
↳ Every headquarters meeting delays frontline action
↳ Local teams see problems 90 days before corporate
↳ By the time HQ understands an issue, it’s too late
The real cost of centralisation:
↳ Market insights get lost in translation
↳ Innovation dies in approval processes
↳ Local opportunities expire in email chains↳ Good people leave, tired of asking permission
The centralisation of services really gained momentum in the 1960s and 1970s, driven by advancements in telecommunications and technology. This trend allowed companies to (claim) cost savings, better (standardised) processes, and improved customer service. Globalisation and a growing emphasis on customer satisfaction further fueled centralisation. While initially focused on contact and call centres, this trend expanded to other business functions like HR, finance, and procurement. Nothing could escape centralisation if it was deemed to be capable of standardisation.
Michele Zanini details what standardisation brings in his excellent piece on Slaying Zombie Management Ideas
When standardization becomes sacred, organizations lose their capacity to adapt. Innovation withers because experimentation requires deviation. Local teams, facing unique market conditions, find themselves handcuffed by one-size-fits-all policies. Excessive control creates passive employees who master compliance but lose their capacity for judgment.
If all this had worked explain to me why public services are in a doom loop? It failed. The only way out is a fundamental rejection of the incumbent model.
Let’s remember why the model fails in complex, person centered environments.
Centralising public services, while aiming for efficiency and equity, often stumbles due to a disconnect from local realities. A “one-size-fits-all” approach neglects diverse community or personal needs, hindering effective service delivery. Rigid bureaucracies stifle innovation and quick responses to evolving circumstances. Accountability diminishes as people find it harder to influence distant decision-makers, eroding public trust.
Ironically, large bureaucracies can increase inefficiency despite the goal of economies of scale. Centralisation often overlooks invaluable local knowledge, resulting in poorly targeted services that fail to address root causes. While decentralisation isn’t a panacea, the core issue is finding the optimal balance. This means combining strategic central enabling with the flexibility and responsiveness of local control, ensuring services are both efficient and tailored to the communities they serve.
At Bromford , we are starting small, with locally focussed two-pizza teams given autonomy over their priorities – bottom up.
We recognise that operating in a standardised, one-size way is antithetical to colleague and customer autonomy.
Reversing centralisation and standardisation though is no small feat, it means reversing practice that has built up over decades. It means creating new practice and leadership behaviours that are completely at odds with what we’ve been sold. You can follow our journey to place-based working in our monthly webinars.
Experimentation requires deviation.
One-size-fits-all approaches hate deviation.
And in truth, if you’re offering a one-size-fits-all service, you’re offering a service that doesn’t really fit anyone.