Lessons Learned

Having gone through a number of organizational redesigns, I was particularly interested in this week’s readings.  Especially interesting to me was Applegate (1995) and the impact of the information age on organizational structures.  As the article was written some 17 years ago, before some of the technology that connects and informs us on daily basis (Twitter, Facebook to name but a two) were introduced, I went to the USC libraries to look for some more recent academic articles to see what impact, if any, this access to information sharing had had on organizations.   I didn’t find exactly what I was looking for—note to all of us about a potential research direction—but did find a fascinating article about organizational change, written by someone who had led the process in a business, and a business that happens to be a competitor to my business.

In the article, “Lessons Learned from a Global Organizational Redesign (Rice & Nash, 2011), John Rice and Maureen Nash, offered an outline and assessment of a structural change they led at Tyco Flow Control in 2008.    Theirs was a retrospective of the process they used and an evaluation of the factors that they believe played a role in its success. This article, from practitioners who’d been in “the trenches” brought into focus many of the concepts from our reading over the last week.

The decision to redesign their organization was driven by market factors (Rice & Nash, 2011).  A decision had been made at the executive level to change the structure from aligning around regions to aligning around industries, across regions (Rice & Nash, 2011).  Goold and Campbell (2002) list “The Market Advantage” as a key question to ask in looking at changing an organization’s structure. 

At Tyco Flow Control, the president realized that they needed to focus on key markets and customer needs in a fast-changing environment to achieve long term global success (Rice & Nash, 2011). 

With the end in mind, the team set about creating a strategy to implement the organizational change. They assembled cross-functional teams, made the redesign part of the team’s job responsibilities, rather than an add-on (Rice & Nash, 2011).  Once the initial design has been formulated, they broadened their cross-functional team to include a wider group to help assess and determine the final pieces of the organization (Rice & Nash, 2011). 

The structure that resulted drew on many of the ideas conveyed by Nohria (1991).  The final structure at Tyco Flow Control was a self-designed network structure.  Nohria wrote that “A network structure involves blurring the boundaries between the organization and its environment…” (Nohria, 1991, p.8) is the structure that Tyco Flow Control created from its planned organizational design effort.

References

Nash, M., & Rice, J. (2011). Lessons learned from a global reorganization redesign. People & Strategy, 34(4). 2011, pp. 56-68.

Nohria, N. (1995). "Note on Organizational Structure." Harvard Business School.

Applegate, L (1995). "Managing in an Information Age." Harvard Business School.

Gould,M. & Campbell, A. (2002) "Do You Have a Well Designed Organization?" Harvard Business Review.

Week 3 Post by Phillip Cortez

I found the article on W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. to be extremely interesting given the both the line of work the company is in as well as the autonomy that associates seem to enjoy so long as they are team players. The article explained in detail how the organization was structured, how groups worked on projects and how associates were encouraged to participate and get rewarded for their efforts through their Leaders through what was described as a Lattice Organization.

It was while reading Chapter 3 in Organization Theory and Design where I found a design element that quickly reminded me of the Gore & Associates model: Horizontal Linkage (Daft, 95).

Daft explains  "horizontal communication overcomes barriers between departments and provides opportunities for coordination among employees to achieve unity of effort and organizational objectives" (Daft, 95). Essentially, this is what Gore's groups or teams strived to achieve while working on projects for the organization. If the idea behind Gore's Lattice organization was to work freely by working at its own pace and fostering original ideas (Townsend & Harder, 4) then Horizontal linkage appears to be a key element.

I was a part of a cohort at the University of San Francisco when I first read about Henry Mintzberg's organizational design types or configurations as they related to sports organizations (Slack, 74). His Simple Structure came to mind because it "has little or no technostructure, few support staff, no real middle line (hence no lengthy managerial hierarchy), and a loose division of labor" (Slack, 74). The key for me was the "no real middle line" aspect of the Simple Structure in comparison to the autonomy that Gore's groups enjoy.


References:


Daft, R. (2007) "Fundamentals of Organizational Structure." Organization Theory and Design (9th ed.), pp. 88-125 (Chapter 3)


Slack, T. (1997) "Design Options in Sport Organizations." Understanding Sport Organizations: The Application of Organization Theory, p 74 (Chapter 4)


W.L. Gore & Associates, CMGT 500 Course Pack

Should a virtual company be concerned about organizational structure?

Most of our readings thus far have discussed organizational structure theory and practice utilizing companies established somewhere with brick and mortar. What about a company that works virtually with virtual employees? Can virtual companies use the mechanics of organizational structure?  Of course they can.

An interesting article titled “Using “Traditional Virtual” organizational structure” by Vlatka Hlupic, a professor of Business and Management at the University of Westminister, gives a good case for how this type of infrastructure “supports worker autonomy while maintaining a consistent, effective, and efficient corporate infrastructure”(Hlupic, 2012). When looking at the development of the “traditional virtual” organizational structure in the case study for Brand Velocity in the article, many of the seven issues that were identified as central concepts were also addressed here. All of the BV employees that work virtually work autonomously. They are integrated through required communication mechanisms and they are given the opportunity to make business related purchasing decisions to name a few.

Although BV wouldn’t be considered an emerging organizational structure because of its traditional structure, it has some similarities. Primarily, BV’s adaptability of its virtual network structure allows them to be rapidly responsive to their environment.

There are many things that make Brand Velocity an organization aligned with the “information age” companies. They have formed key strategic alliances to help them do their jobs more efficiently at a lower cost and to allow them to focus on their core competencies. Along with being centralized, their corporate infrastructure is still very traditional including accountability and hierarchy.

In conclusion, I believe they are making a good run at being a successful company in the information age and being virtual. I also believe with so many employees being virtual, eventually they may have some issues with motivation since the human factor of their internal integration is almost non-existent.

Link to the article:  http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/using-traditionally-virtual-organizational-structure

Hlupic, V., & Co-Authored by Bergstrand, J., Grams, C., Blobelt, S., Zandona, G., Grove, M. Using “traditionally Virtual” organizational structure, Management Innovation eXchange, April 2012.

 Nohria, N. (1995). "Note on Organizational Structure." Harvard Business School.

Applegate, L (1995). "Managing in an Information Age." Harvard Business School.

.

Week 3 post by Andrew

For this week’s application assignment, I decided to look for uses of thoughtful organization structure in fields outside of large corporations and see what links could be found, as designing an organization to meet objectives and execute strategies is a task necessary for success in any group endeavor.

From an article in the Journal of Educational Change, I found an apt subject: an elementary school transitioning to become an Edison charter school.  While Edison Schools are organized as for-profit businesses, their ultimate product is education, with philosophical differences from traditional public schools. Among these shifts is that “Edison Schools purport to create a professional environment that emphasizes collegial interaction and ongoing professional development” (Rutherford, 2006, p. 65). One way the Edison school profiled in this journal article creates this environment is through an organizational structure that distributes more responsibility to teachers, as opposed to the principal-centric environment.

At Edison Schools, teachers have three classifications: resident, senior and lead teachers. Each level (going in sequence from resident to senior and to lead) of the hierarchy involves responsibility for mentoring teachers lower in the structure, with lead teachers also working on curriculum development in a role where they “straddle the boundary between teaching and administration” (Rutherford, 2006, p. 66).

Comparing the Edison model with some of Goold and Campbell’s tests for well-designed organizations (2002) yields interesting results.  When it comes to the Market Advantage Test, for example, I would argue that Edison’s structure does indeed direct sufficient attention to their source of competitive advantage. In this case, the structure itself is the competitive advantage, as the collegiality and interdisciplinary coordination Edison schools espouse are difficult to achieve in a highly structured and hierarchical environment often found in public education.

When it comes to the flexibility test, the Edison model shines. Goold and Campbell state “a well-designed organization is flexible for the future as well as fit for the present” (2002, p. 10). For Edison, this focus on both the future and present comes through when the model “relies on research-based innovations” (Rutherford, 2006, p. 65). Keeping a focus on research and innovation will require Edison schools to be flexible and adapt with future innovations.

While many might argue with Edison’s methods and the role of for-profit organizations intervening in American education, Edison provides an intriguing look at designing organizations for results in educational outcomes just like corporate organizational designers strive for financial outcomes.

References

Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002, March). Do you have a well-designed organization? Harvard Business Review, 5-11.

Rutherford, C. (2006). Teacher leadership and organizational structure: the implications of restructured leadership in an Edison school. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 59–76. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0013-4

Week Three - Brian Bleau

Sit-down with Jennifer Piwonski, marketing representative, Genisys Credit Union

I will preface this post by saying that Jen is my fiancé. She works at Genisys Credit Union’s corporate headquarters in Auburn Hills, Mich. as a marketing representative. Since I’ve never worked on the corporate side of the communications and marketing industry, I thought that this would be a good opportunity to learn more about her company by asking questions that I never would have otherwise. 

Although Jen was quick to note that each department is fairly autonomous and does accept input from employees, the company certainly adheres to a functional form. Departments are broken up to perform specialized tasks and decisions are funneled from the CEO and vice presidents to managers; then to the rest of the staff (Note on Organization Structure). The company does, however, welcome and encourage ideas from all team members, making management more involved by giving it the opportunity to cultivate and improve upon these ideas by collaborating with the subordinates that submitted them (Managing in an Information Age).  

The complete opposite of my firm’s approach, which tends to develop “jacks of all trades” across accounts, Genisys differentiates departments based on the specialized tasks that they perform. Employees within those departments are then developed into experts in very specific areas, such as data marketing and social media, creating highly knowledgeable employees that specialize in job functions that are organization critical (Note on Organization Structure). I suppose the downside to this strategy is that if an employee in one of these highly specialized positions decides to leave suddenly, there is nobody left to pick up where they left off.

When new projects like the current Genisys Credit Union iPhone app redesign begin, the company assembles cross-functional teams, led by a project manager, to gather specialists from multiple departments (in this case, marketing, IT, sales and services, and electronics) to complete them. Despite our readings this week stating that dual managers can create confusion and disarray, Jen said that she has never seen this happen in her five years with the company. She told me that Genisys makes it a priority to engrain company values and mission within its employee base, leading to great cooperation and commitment to achieving company goals and ultimately, pleasing members. Although project managers technically outrank functional managers, conflict rarely arises due to a great mutual understanding and “team-first” attitude (Note on Organization Structure).

Outside of specialized project teams, the company follows a pattern of reciprocal integration. Since most projects and tasks, like launching new branches, website redesigns and market research to name a few, require ongoing changes and feedback and collaboration between departments, information flows back and forth freely via frequent meetings and electronic communication (Note on Organization Design).

I learned a lot through by reading this week’s materials and lots of the ideas were materialized and solidified after interviewing Jen. I think for me, the most significant piece of information that I got from this sit-down was her example of how participative management, strong corporate values and hiring/developing employees who buy into the company’s mission 100 percent can diffuse potential conflict before it arises (this is in reference to the segment on dual management of cross-functional team members).

References

Applegate, L. (1995). Managing in an informational age: Organizational challenges and opportunities. CMGT 500 course pack. 

Note on Organization Design. CMGT 500 course pack. 

Note on Organization Structure. CMGT 500 course pack.

Week 3 Post

For this week I found and used another news story.  This story is on the restructuring of Volkswagen (VW) in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

According to the WSJ story, VW is the world’s second largest automobile manufacturer and by 2018 it wants to be the largest. General Motors is currently the largest.

Christoph Rauwald wrote in the WSJ:

But Volkswagen's aggressive expansion along with its growing industrial complexity sparked concerns that the company is becoming increasingly difficult to control. In addition to ambitious plans in the commercial vehicle sector, Volkswagen last month entered the motorbike segment through the acquisition of Italy's Ducati Motor Holding SpA. ‘With this new positioning we're giving the right answer to master increased requirements [as] our company became much larger and more international in recent years,’ Mr. Winterkorn [Chief Executive of VW] said.

Having such a large organization with such diverse products (cars, SUVs, motorbikes) under various names (VW, Audi, Ducati), and having various leaders overseeing each line and organization, I want to assume that VW uses a Matrix and/or Hybrid Structure (Daft, 2007, p. 104).  Although of course this is just speculation; the article doesn’t go as in-depth about it as I’d like. 

The article did, however, remind of the Microsoft example that Daft used to describe divisional structure.  Like the various Microsoft business units (Windows, Office Software, etc.) VW operates a variety of business units as well as brands. 

Operating that many brands and units and wanting to grow to become the largest automobile manufacturer in the world by growing in China though, I think a Hybrid Structure (combining Functional and Divisional Structures) would work (Daft, 2007, p. 122).  This Hybrid Structure would group both by function and products and services. 

The reading used Ford Motor Company as an example, citing this structure in an effort to become the “world’s leading automotive firm in the twenty-first century” (Daft, 2007, p. 122) which is VW’s current goal.  Knowing this is the structure I would pick and knowing what Ford’s outcome in the last decade has been, I would definitely want to consider all options though.  Maybe the Hybrid Structure isn’t the best and that is something that those in charge of VW’s restructuring did consider.

References:

Daft, R. (2007) "Fundamentals of Organizational Structure.” Organization Theory and Design (9th ed.), pp. 88-125 (Chapter 3)

Rauwald, C. (2012, June 3). Volkswagen shuffles management. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.online.wsj.com

Week 3 Application Assignment by Will

Hi everyone -- I did my posting this week as a Powerpoint with audio narrative on VoiceThread.  You can check it out here:

https://voicethread.com/share/3155244/

And by the way, don't be afraid of VoiceThread.  It's so easy!