Moreover the planned approach initiates form inside the organization to deal with environmental demands and the change process is sequential (Burnes, 1996). Whereas emergent change stems from continuous improvement and learning organization theory. This approach initiates opportunity in ongoing activity within the organization and it is seen as driven by “bottom-up” process (Burnes, 1996).
However the two approaches appear to have some striking similarities (Burnes, 1996). The distinction between them is not cut-off (Senior, 2002) and both approaches share common difficulties. The planned change assumes organization that operates in stable environment (Burnes, 1996). It heavily focuses on management view or the “single view” (Senior, 2002). On the other hand, the emergent approach assumes organization that operates in turbulent environment. This approach has a little control over its environment,(Fig. 2). The PDO corporate-transformation scale can be seen as a planned change because the company set is “top-down” and the oil environment is fairly stable environment. According to Deal and Kennedy (cited in Mullins, 1996) the oil companies such as PDO can be described as a “Bet-your-company culture” which is described by high risk and slow feedback culture. As the company invests millions in large-scale project, it takes a long-time for action and decision. As a result the decision making tend to be top-down similar as described by Handy (1979) role culture. However, one cannot distinguish the difference between planned and emergent changes. In many respects both approaches can be equally valid and applied to different organization circumstances. The next step is to analyze the change management.
Strategies of Organisational Change There are two basic strategies to facilitate change in organizations: the “transition” and “transformation” strategies (Levy & Merry, 1986). The first is widely known and is more utilized because it is goal-oriented. In this strategy, the change efforts are focused on managing the transition from a present state into a new state that is already known. The second, on the other hand, which is less known and less developed, focuses on transformation processes. The transformation strategy is a process-oriented strategy in which the main efforts for change are focused on consciousness raising and processes like understanding present.
Ackerman (1983) states that “In situations where clients have a clear future state in mind, like reorganization…the transition management process is used to achieve or implement that desired state. Its focus is over a set period of time, at the end of which the ‘future’ becomes the ‘present’ way of operating”.
The transition strategy takes into account human as well as formal structural needs of the system as the implementation proceeds. The change process has a greater emphasis on the entire system (levy & Merry, 1986). The transition strategy is future-oriented for it only focuses on practical issues related to implementing the desired state. This strategy is analytical, rational, and pragmatic in nature. Its primary goal is to know the impact of the future state on the present state, and deducing what action steps need to be taken.
On the other hand, the words “spirit,” “spirituality,” and “energy” are key elements in describing organizational transformation (Levy & Merry, 1986). Hawley (1983) describes organizational transformation as follows a basic change in the organization energy.” Kiefer and Stroh (1984) also claim that the main emphasis of the transformation strategy is on the organization’s purpose and vision, and the alignment of members with these elements. A vision created out of the organization’s and individuals’ needs tends to “pull” the organization toward its fulfillment.
Therefore, the main components of the transformation strategy are not inclined to forms nor to structures. On the contrary, they are abstract, fluid, and dynamic elements that are hard to define and deal with. These elements are the organization unconsciousness, energy, spirit, spirituality, mission, purpose, vision, belief systems, worldview, myths, symbols, paradigm, and state of being.
According to Levy and Merry (1986), the transition and transformation strategies are not mutually exclusive. In any organizational change, they are used as mixed strategies or one after the other, depending on the organization situation, the manager, or the consultant. But because of their different methods and approaches, transformation strategies are more useful for facilitating the first phases of the change process, while transition strategy is more useful for facilitating the later phases of the process.
Limitation of Organisational Change
Mintzberg Five Configuration
According to Henry Mintzberg, an organization’s structure is largely determined by the variety one finds in its environment. For Mintzberg, environmental variety is determined by both environmental complexity and the pace of change. As seen in Table 4, there are four types of organizational form, which are associated with four combinations of complexity and change.
Table 4. Environmental Determinants of Organizational Structures
In explaining each of the four organizational forms, Mintzberg defines five basic organizational subunits.
Figure 3. Five Basic Organizational Subunits
In these subunits, the strategic apex is represented by the Board of Directors and Chief Executives. The techno structure on the other hand is represented by those involved in Strategic Planning, Personnel Training, Operations Research and Systems Analysis and Design. The Support Staff is composed of the Legal Counsel, Public Relations Officers, Payroll and Mailroom Clerks, and Cafeteria Workers. The Middle Line consists of the VP Operations, VP Marketing, Plant Managers and Sales Managers. Finally, the Operating Core involves Purchasing Agents, Machine Operators, Assemblers, Sales Persons and Shippers (Beshears, 2003).
Each of the four organizational forms in Mintzberg’s scheme depends on fundamentally different mechanisms for coordination. According to Mintzberg (1979), the glue holding organisational structure together involves mutual adjustment, direct supervision, standardisation of work processes, standardization of work outputs, standardisation of skills and standardisation of norms. Figure 4 illustrates the basic mechanisms of coordination
Mutual adjustment is the co-ordination of work by process of informal communication. Here, the control of work rests in the hands of the ‘doers’. The success in mutual adjustment depends on groups/teams of specialists adapting to each other along an uncharted route. In direct supervision, the organization outgrows its simplest state. Co-ordination is practiced by taking responsibility for the work of others.
On the other hand, the standardization of work processes is needed when the content of work is specified for in the program. Here, the reutilization and bureaucratization of processes is commonplace in business. Reutilization and bureaucratization may reduce opportunities for independent action and creative expression but for those delivering and those receiving the results of reutilization the benefits are substantial in every aspect of life.
Skills and knowledge are standardised through education and training before or after joining the firm. Where an organisation invests in systematic training not only policies, rules and values are being conveyed but also standard ways in which skill should be applied.
Furthermore, work results can be specified by performance dimensions, conversion ratios, profitability and cost indicators, time. Therefore, unlike the skills and knowledge, the result can be standardised.
Figure 4.
Mintzberg makes use of his own classification of organizational types (Mintzberg & Quinn, 1988): the Simple Structure, Machine Bureaucracy, Divisionalized Form, Professional Bureaucracy and Adhocracy (see Fig. 5).
An organization with a simple structure does not have an elaborate, formal arrangement of reporting relationships (Mintzberg & Quinn, 1988). Because of its “structure” and coordination/control, it enables the organization to respond quickly to environmental demands. As a result, work relationships are more fluid and there is a small, centrist management hierarchy. Moreover, there are few functional specialists. People doing core operational tasks are often interchangeable. The division of labor is looser with people carrying out multiple roles. Finally, there is less role differentiation.
The Machine Bureaucracy is exemplified by large structures such as an airline or a hotel chain. These structures are managed as integrated, regulated systems which make use of specialised, routinised methods and tasks, formal operating procedures governed by well defined rules and regulations and the formal organisational communication systems are well-developed to ensure communication flow between operational units (Mintzberg, 1979). In addition, tasks are grouped on functional lines and the decision making powers are more centralised.
As stated earlier, the standardization of skills and values is one of the glues that bind a Professional Bureaucracy together. It is typified by a collegiate of academics in a university, a practice of doctors, a partnership of solicitors and a trumpet of volunteers. It may also show signs of machine bureaucracy and adhocracy but for typology purposes the Professional Bureaucracy reflects “standardization with decentralization” (Mintzberg, 1979).
Mintzberg’s Adhocracy is represented by smaller scale and fluid structures. Here a group of line managers, staff and operating experts come together most of the time in small product, customer or project-focused teams. Informal behaviour and high job specialisation are its characteristic. Teams rely on liaison methods and mutual adjustment between themselves and other teams. Teams have their terms of reference by more senior management and a team’s scope for action and membership may run counter to the command structure of the rest of the organisation e.g. a machine bureaucracy.
Figure 5.
Managerial Roles Concept, Nature, Classification and the Mintzberg Framework of Managerial Roles
What is a managerial role? Mintzberg (1973) concludes that a role is a set of certain behavioral rules associated with a concrete organization or post. Thus, in addition to functions of management as parameters of managerial activities there appeared one more unit – managerial role. Mintzberg (1973) classified the roles into three groups- interpersonal, informational and the managerial proper.
Roles do not exist per se, with every manager they are interdependent and interrelated in such a way that they allow to describe the nature of managerial activities taking into account levels of managers and the specificity of production processes (Mintzberg, 1979). Therefore, it is possible to define different types managers with the help of prevalent roles. Table 5 and Figure 5 show the managerial roles according to Mintzberg.
Table 5. [Accessed at www.bashedu.ru]
Managerial Roles According To Henry Mintzberg
Interpersonal roles.
Description of actions
Examples from managerial practice requiring activation of corresponding roles
1. Figurehead
Symbolic leader of the organization performing duties of social and legal character
Attending ribbon-cutting ceremonies, hosting receptions, presentations and other activities associated with the figurehead role
2. Leader
Motivating subordinates, interaction with them, selection and training of employees
Virtually all managerial operations involving subordinates
3. Liaison
Establishing contacts with managers and specialists of other divisions and organizations, informing subordinates of these contacts
Business correspondence, participation in meetings with representatives of other divisions (organizations)
Informational roles.
1. Monitor (receiver)
Collecting various data relevant to adequate work
Handling incoming correspondence, periodical surveys, attending seminars and exhibitions, research tours
2. Disseminator of information
Transmitting information obtained from both external sources and employees to interested people inside the organization
Dissemination of information letters and digests, interviewing, informing subordinates of the agreements reached
3. Spokesperson
Transmitting information on the organization’s plan’s, current situation and achievements of the divisions to outsiders
Compiling and disseminating information letters and circulars, participation in meetings with progress reports
Decisional roles.
1. Entrepreneur (initiator of channge)
Seeking opportunities to develop processes both inside the organization and in the systems of interaction with other divisions and structures, initiates implementation of innovations to improve the organization’s situation and employee well-being
Participation in meetings involving debating and decision making on perspective issues, and also in meetings dedicated to implementation of innovations
2. Disturbance handler
Taking care of the organizations, correcting ongoing activities, assuming responsibility when factors threatening normal work of the organization emerge
Debating and decision making on strategic current issues concerning ways of overcoming crisis situations
3. Resource allocator
Deciding on expenditure of the organization’s physical, financial and human resources
Drawing up and approving schedules, plans, estimates and budgets; controlling their execution
4. Negotiator (mediator)
Representing the organization in all important negotiations
Conducting negotiations, establishing official links between the organization and other companies
According to Mintzberg (1973), the informational roles link all managerial work together; the interpersonal roles meanwhile ensure that information is provided; and the decisional roles make significant use of the information. The performance of managerial roles and the requirements of these roles can be interchangeably played at different times by the same manager and to different degrees depending on the level and function of management.
The interpersonal roles are primarily concerned with interpersonal relationships while the informational roles are concerned with the information aspects of managerial work. On the other hand, the unique access to information places the manager at the center of organizational decision-making.
Figure 5.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment