Reflection Blog

User Generated

mnuebo10

Business Finance

Description

This assignment involves keeping a journal recording your thoughts, insights, and introspections following each week. In addition, you should examine and discuss your reactions and notions about how the material pertinent to a given session relates to your own past/future work/non-work situations. The purpose of this assignment is to let you take a little time once a week to reflect, so as to improve your understanding of yourself and organizational development.

Each blog entry should have 4 identifiable headings: Summary, Meaningful Ideas, Personal Connecting, Changes. Review the directions and guidance on reflective writing for more information on what to include in each week's blog posting.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

CHAPTER 32 Corporate Culture Edgar H. Schein Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. How to Think About and Define “Culture” To understand corporate culture one must first understand the concept of culture. A chronic issue in conceptualizing culture is whether to think of culture as a static property of a given organization—its shared customs, beliefs, norms, values, and tacit assumptions or whether to think of culture as a dynamic human process of constructing shared meaning (Frost et al, 1985). Culture creation is one of the unique characteristics of humans, being based on our capacity to be self-conscious and able to see ourselves and others from each others’ points of view. It is this reflexive capacity of humans that makes culture possible. At the same time, it is the human need for finding meaning that creates the motivation for culture stabilization. Without some predictability social intercourse becomes too anxiety provoking. Developing shared meanings of how to perceive, categorize, and think about what goes on around us is necessary to avoid the catastrophic anxiety that would result from reacting to everything as if it were a new phenomenon. Given these human characteristics, it then becomes clear that culture is both a process and a state. In new situations shared meanings must be constructed through a social learning process. As these meanings help the participants to make sense of their world they become stabilized and can be viewed as “states.” At the same time, as the members of a group interact, they not only recreate and ratify prior meanings but also construct new meanings as new situations arise. A useful way to think about this issue is to take a cue from the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins (1985) who argues that one cannot really understand certain social phenomena without understanding both the historical events and the cultural meanings attributed by the actors to those events. While it is undeniably true that we produce and reinforce culture through perpetual enactment and sense making, it is equally true that the actors in those same social events bring to them some prior meanings, stereotypes, and expectations that can only be understood in a historical context. Culture production in the enactment sense, then, is either the perpetuation of or a change of some prior state, but that prior state can be thought of as “the culture” up to that point. And one can describe that culture as if it were a “state” of the existing system, even though one knows that the system is dynamic and perpetually evolving. The direction of that evolution will be a product of several forces: (1) technological and physical OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:50:46. changes in the external environment; (2) changes in the internal dynamics of the social system; and (3) historical circumstances that are fortuitous or serendipitous. For example, let me offer my oversimplified summary of Sahlins’ very sophisticated analysis of the death of Captain Cook at the hand of the Hawaiians. Because Captain Cook was viewed as a God (as predicted in the Hawaiian mythology), the sexual favors offered to his sailors by the Hawaiian women were viewed as gifts and as opportunities to relate to the divine. The sailors’ cultural background defined this as a version of prostitution, however, for which they felt they should pay. When they offered the women something in exchange for the sex, the women asked for something that was scarce in the society, namely metal. Once the loose metal on board the ships had been used up, the sailors began to pull nails from the ship itself, weakening it structurally. Hence, when Captain Cook set sail he discovered that the ships needed repair and ordered a return to harbor. In Hawaiian mythology a God returning under these circumstances had to be ritually killed. At the same time, Hawaiian social structure was undergoing change and became permanently altered because the subordinate role of women in the society was altered by their ability to acquire metal, a scarce resource that gave them social power. When one contemplates this wonderful analysis it appear pointless to argue whether culture should be viewed as a state of the system or as a process of enactment. Clearly there was a culture in Hawaii and a different culture on board the British ship, and clearly the interaction of these two cultures produced events that had a profound impact on both of these cultures. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. Implications for “Organizational” Culture Analysis The major lesson of Sahlins’ analysis is that when we have access to historical data we should use it. Organizations have defined histories. Therefore, when we analyze organizational cultures we should reconstruct their histories, find out about their founders and early leaders, look for the critical defining events in their evolution as organizations and be confident that when we have done this we can indeed describe sets of shared assumptions that derive from common experiences of success and/or shared traumas. And we can legitimately think of these sets of assumptions as “the culture” at a given time. That description will include subcultures that may be in conflict with each other, and there may be sub-units that have not yet had enough shared experience to have formed shared common assumptions. In other words, culture as a state, does not have to imply unanimity or absence of conflict. There can be some very strongly shared assumptions and large areas of conflict and/or ambiguity (Martin, 1992) within a given cultural “state.” At the same time, we can study the day to day interactions of the members of an organization with each other and with members of other organizations to determine how given cultural assumptions are reinforced and confirmed, or challenged and disconfirmed. We can analyze the impact of these perceptual interactive events in order to understand how cultures evolve and change. This process could be especially productive in mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures of various sorts. Whether one chooses to focus one’s cultural research on OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:50:46. building typologies of cultural “states,” categories that freeze a given organization at a given point in time, or on analyzing the moment to moment interactions in which members of a given social system attempt to make sense of their experience and, in that process, reinforce and evolve cultural elements, becomes a matter of choice. Both are valid methodologies and in practice they should probably be combined. A Formal Definition of Culture Culture as a property or process of any group can now be defined as: A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group has learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 1992). Once these patterns have been learned they function to reduce anxiety and provide moment to moment meaning and predictability to daily events. Or, as Trice and Beyer (1993) put it: “Human cultures emerge from people’s struggles to manage uncertainties and create some degree of order in social life” (p. 1). Note that patterns of overt behavior are not part of the formal definition because such patterns can be caused by other causes such as common instinctive patterns (e.g., ducking when we hear a loud noise) or by common reactions to a common stimulus (e.g., everyone running in the same direction to avoid some threat). If one understands the shared basic assumptions, one can determine which regularities of behavior are “cultural” and which ones are not. One cannot, however, infer the assumptions just by observing behavior. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. A Conceptual Model for Analyzing Culture Whether one chooses to analyze culture as a state or as a process, it is helpful to differentiate the levels at which culture as a shared phenomenon manifests itself. Any group, organization, or larger social system can be analyzed in terms of: (1) its visible and feelable “artifacts”; (2) its espoused beliefs and values; and/or (3) its less visible, taken for granted shared basic assumptions (see Figure 32.1). This model is useful in two ways: (1) it helps a novice observer of organizational culture to differentiate the superficial manifestations and espoused values that most organizations display from the cultural substrate or essence, the tacit, shared assumptions that drive the day to day behavior that one observes; and (2) the differentiation of levels is a necessary conceptual tool in helping an organization to decipher its own culture. To further understand these distinctions, especially the distinction between espoused values and shared tacit assumptions, it is necessary to take a historical evolutionary point of view toward culture formation. If we take a typical business organization, the process starts with one or more entrepreneurs who found a company based on some personal beliefs and values. As they hire others to work with them they will either choose those others on the basis OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:50:46. of their compatibility or will socialize newcomers to the beliefs and values that they regard as core to running the new business. The founders’ beliefs and values will cause the organization to make decisions in its environment and, if those decisions are successful, the newcomers will begin to entertain collectively the idea that the founder’s beliefs and values must be “correct.” As the environment continues to reinforce the behavior of the organization, what were originally the founder’s personal beliefs and values gradually come to be shared and imposed on new members as the organization grows. If this success cycle continues, these shared beliefs and values gradually come to be taken for granted, drop out of awareness, and can, therefore, be thought of as “taken for granted assumptions” that become increasingly nonnegotiable. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. FIGURE 32.1 The Levels of Culture This process of culture formation will occur not only in reference to the organization’s primary task in its various external environments but also with respect to its internal organization as well. Those founder beliefs and values, which make life livable and reduce interpersonal anxiety, will gradually come to be taken for granted and come to be tacit assumptions about the “correct” way to organize. But in both domains the driving force is what works. Culture is the result of successful action. If things do not work out the group will disappear. A basic need in human groups is to justify what they do. And paradoxically, the justifications often are not the same as the tacit assumptions that actually determine the behavioral regularities. Thus groups create ideologies, aspirations, visions, and various other kinds of “espoused values” which may or may not correspond isomorphically with the tacit assumptions. The most difficult aspect of deciphering organizational cultures, then, is to determine to what extent the claimed espoused values actually correspond to the behavioral regularities observed and, if not, to determine what the shared tacit assumptions are. How to Describe Cultures There are three approaches to describing cultures: (1) Profiling them on various pre-selected dimensions; (2) Creating conceptual typologies into which to fit given cultures; and/or (3) OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:50:46. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. Clinical or ethnographic descriptions that highlight unique aspects of a given culture. Among the profiling approaches, one of the most widely used is Hofstede’s four dimensions based on factor analyzing questionnaire responses—Individualism (vs. Groupism), Masculinity (the perceived gap between male and female roles), Tolerance for Ambiguity, and Power Distance (the perceived distance between the most and least powerful in the society). These dimensions were originally used to describe national cultures but have also been extended to descriptions of organizational cultures (Hofstede, 1980; 1991). A different approach has been to use sociological dimensions developed by Parsons (1951) and elaborated by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) as a way of creating profiles of a given organization and identifying critical value issues—universalism vs. particularism, individualism vs. collectivism, affectively charged vs. neutral, specific vs. diffuse, time orientation, and degree of control over nature (Hampden-Turner & Trompenars, 1993; Trompenars, 1993). A third version of this approach is to take one or two dimensions, consider them to be conceptually central, and create a typology based on a two by two table with those dimensions. Cameron & Quinn (1999) use (1) Flexibility vs. Stability and Control and (2) Internal Integration vs. External Differentiation to create four types of cultures—Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market. Goffee & Jones (1998) use the dimensions of Degree of Solidarity and Degree of Sociability to create four types—Networked, Communal, Fragmented, and Mercenary. Among the typologies we have Likert’s Systems 1 to 4, Harrison and later Handy’s Gods of Management, McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, Ouchi’s Theory Z and the more popular distinctions between “command and control” vs. “committed and empowered” (Likert, 1967; Handy, 1978; McGregor, 1960; Ouchi, 1981). The clinical or ethnographic approach attempts to deal with any given culture as a unique pattern of shared assumptions around issues that are not known before the clinician/researcher is on the scene as an observer and active inquirer (Schein, 1987, 1992, 1999). The prime objection to questionnaires as research tools for the study of culture is that they force us to cast the theoretical net too narrowly. The advantage of the ethnographic or clinical research method is that we can consciously train ourselves to minimize the impact of our own models and to maximize staying open to new experiences and concepts we may encounter. In the end we may well sort those experiences into the existing categories we already hold. But at least we will have given ourselves the opportunity to discover new dimensions and, more importantly, will have a better sense of the relative salience and importance of certain dimensions within the culture we are studying. The issue of salience is very important because not all the elements of a culture are equally potent in the degree to which they determine behavior. The more open group oriented inquiry not only reveals how the group views the elements of the culture, but, more importantly, tells us immediately which things are more salient and, therefore, more important as determinants. As to the categories themselves I have found it empirically useful to start with a broad list of “survival functions”—what any group must do to survive in its various environments and fulfill its primary task, and “internal integration functions”—what any group must do to maintain itself as a functioning system. This distinction is entirely consistent with a long tradition of empirical research in group dynamics that always turns up two critical factors in what groups do—1) task functions and 2) group building and maintenance functions. Ancona OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:50:46. and others have pointed out that we must add a third set to these two—boundary maintenance functions (Ancona, 1988). Task and boundary maintenance functions are external survival issues, and group building and maintenance functions are internal integration issues. We may then construct different lists of what specific dimensions of behavior, attitude, and belief we will look for in each domain but at least we have a model that forces us to cast the net widely, and a reminder that culture is for the group the learned solution to all of its external and internal problems. If we then look a little deeper, drawing again on anthropology and sociology, we find broad cultural variations around deeper more abstract issues such as those developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck. Also useful is the work of England (1975) on managerial values that deals specifically with how in a given culture one arrives at “truth.” If one combines these dimensions with some of the dimensions identified by Edward Hall (1966, 1976, 1983) on concepts of space and spatial relationships, and with more recent concepts about the nature of the “self” in different cultures, one has a pretty good template of what culture covers at this deeper level. Does Corporate Culture Matter? Several claims based on various different kinds of research have tried to show a connection between the strength and/or type of culture and economic performance (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1990; Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Collins & Porras, 1994). The problem is that different kinds of cultural dimensions relate to different kinds of environments in ways that are not entirely predictable. The best way to summarize, then, is to say that culture certainly influences economic performance, but the manner in which this occurs remains highly variable. A culture that can be very functional in one environment or at one stage in a company’s evolution can become dysfunctional and cause that same company to fail. Culture needs to be analyzed and understood but until much more research has been done, one cannot make generalizations about its impact. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. References Ancona, D. G. (1988). Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory models. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Annual review of personality and social psychology: Group and intergroup processes (pp. 207–231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Dennison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. England, G. (1975). The manager and his values. New York, NY: Ballinger. Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (Eds.) (1985). OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:50:46. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. Organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1998). The character of a corporation. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life. New York, NY: Doubleday. Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenars, A. (1993). The seven cultures of capitalism. New York, NY: Doubleday-Currency. Handy, C. (1978). Gods of management. London, UK: PanMacmillan. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: Free Press. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Parson, T. (1951). The social system. New York, NY: Free Press. Sahlins, M. (1985). Islands of history. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Schein, E. H. (1987). The clinical perspective in fieldwork. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Trompenars, A. (1993). Riding the waves of change. London, UK: Economist Books. OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:50:46. CHAPTER 37 Participative Design An Overview Greg Vaughan Things We Know to Be True Let’s be honest. There are some things we know to be true without needing proof. • Did you ever really doubt that cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health? • Do you doubt that talking on a cell phone while driving a car increases risk of accident? We have a sort of collective consensus about these things. We know other people will agree with us. We even feel safe talking about these topics in social situations because they pose low risk of disagreement. OK, here’s another one: • Do you really think bureaucracy is the best way to get things done? Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. I’ll bet most of you agree that bureaucracy is a badly flawed system we grudgingly make the most of. So why, then, do organizations continue to function in ways most acknowledge to be frustratingly ineffective? Blind Spots We all have blind spots—areas of behavior or personality that are outside of our awareness. Organizations have their own blind spots. One such blind spot that is the root of many problems and missed opportunities is the bureaucratic organizational design. Organizational design is overlooked as a key to organizational breakthrough. Indeed, the design structure underlying the vast majority of companies and organizations has remained unchanged for over 200 years (Emery & Purser, 1996, p. 50). That design is the command and control hierarchy. Often called a bureaucratic or centralized system, the command and control structure fits OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. like a pair of bad shoes in today’s uncertain social and technical environment. Most of us intuitively know this to be true. Management as we’ve known it usually means controlling the work of others, but this kind of management is rapidly becoming obsolete. The alternative is self-management. Only Two Choices Basically, there are two ways to structure an organization (see Figure 37.1). One is a command and control structure where responsibility for coordination and control of work occurs one level above where the work is being done. This is called Design Principle 1 (DP1), and it typifies the familiar bureaucratic organizations in which we’ve all worked. The other is an organizational structure where coordination and control occurs by those actually doing the work. This is called Design Principle 2 (DP2) and it is the structure necessary for truly selfmanaging organizations (Emery & Purser, pp. 102-109). Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. FIGURE 37.1 Underlying the DP1 design are a number of mechanistic assumptions about employees. In the DP1 structure, employees are considered interchangeable and easily replaced cogs in the organizational wheel. To make this possible, concise job descriptions are established and layers of managers, supervisors, and specialists are established to coordinate and oversee the work of those below them. At an even deeper level, the underlying assumption is that employees lack the skills, knowledge, and drive to manage their own affairs. Management reveals this belief when they complain, “My employees just don’t want any more responsibility.” In contrast, the DP2 design principle assumes that, given the right organizational conditions, employees are purposeful, ideal seeking, and can manage themselves. This paradigm views people as capable of contributing to a learning and planning community, collaborating to achieve a shared desirable future. In DP2 organizations, employees develop the capacity and accept the responsibility to perform multiple functions as needed by the work OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. group to achieve its purposes. Bye Bye Bureaucracy Most organizations are still command and control structures (DP1). This design made sense in the industrial age, but not any more. Then, employees were viewed as easily replaceable, needing the guidance and expertise of supervisors to oversee their performance. In today’s turbulent environment, however, the DP1 structure is no longer adaptive. Managers and supervisors can’t be experts in every facet of the complex workplace. Increasingly, the workforce consists of knowledge workers, who are capable of managing their own work and need to do so to maximize creativity. Research conducted by Fred Emery and other social scientists identified a litany of problems with bureaucracy. The following are just a few they found (Cabana, 1995, p.221): Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. • Bureaucracy stifles creativity, learning, and enthusiasm • The bureaucratic workplace reinforces competition rather than cooperation • People withhold valuable information that might give another internal person or group a competitive advantage • Those at the top rarely have an idea of what is really happening below them because subordinates distort and filter information as it travels up the hierarchy Bureaucratic organizations create a vicious cycle. They assume employees need to be told what to do and get exactly that—employees who wait for guidance and don’t take responsibility. This learned helplessness is often the catalyst for change in the first place, but improvement programs like TQM, empowerment, and re-engineering eventually bog down because they still retain centralized control and fail to alter the organization’s underlying structure. “Rather than attempting to fix the bureaucratic structures and elaborate systems that have stifled entrepreneurial initiative,” companies continually sidestep the primary issue rather than solve it (Ghoshal & Bartlett, p. 39). At a personal level, it is understandable that bureaucracy retains such a tenacious hold on us. From early childhood we are socialized into command and control classrooms. The typical education experience is one based on passivity, where curriculum and learning methods are determined by teachers and school boards. From school, we move on to fill job slots where we are told what to do. Even when we attend conferences or workshops for professional development, the events are coordinated by specialists who assume what participants need to know and bring in experts to deliver it. At the organizational level, there is tremendous fear that anything other than DP1 will lead to chaos and lack of structure. Fear is often strongest among managers and supervisors who see themselves as having the most to lose in a DP2 organizational structure. Indeed, they have worked hard within the bureaucracy to achieve status and influence, and they often circle the wagons to protect their gains. Because of this, any organizational move towards DP2 must be accompanied by extensive work with mid-level managers to help them adopt useful new roles OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. within the organization. What’s In It for Me? So why would an organization decide to cast aside its cherished relationship with bureaucracy in favor of the uncharted waters of self-management? For one thing, self-managing organizations are cheaper to run, they have lower overhead. “Staffing levels are 25 to 40 percent lower than in traditional bureaucratic organizations (Purser & Cabana, 1998, p. 29).” Fewer managers and supervisors are required in the self-managing organization because teams of multi-skilled workers absorb many of their functions. Self-managing organizations also are more productive. A self-management structure at Southcorp yielded 60% reduction in waste, along with lower levels of rejects (Rehm, p. 151). Studies conducted by Proctor and Gamble showed productivity to be 30 to 40 percent higher in its self-managed plants (Purser & Cabana, pp. 27-29). The self-managing organization is a more effective way to get things done. This is because both human and technical needs are taken into account in the design of the organization. Employees display higher levels of involvement, responsibility, and commitment because they have greater influence over their own work conditions. They also take more initiative and demonstrate more creativity than their counterparts in command and control organizations. In today’s constantly changing environment, survival depends on a company’s capacity to respond quickly. Compared to their command and control counterparts, self-managing organizations are more flexible. They anticipate and adapt more quickly to changes in the marketplace and surrounding environment. This is because the self-managing work structure creates the necessary conditions for accelerated learning. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. Been There, Done That So, with all these compelling advantages, why isn’t there a stampede to self-management? One barrier in the United States is the belief among many companies that they’ve already tried it. They implement programs under the guise of self-management, such as self-managed teams and employee empowerment. Unfortunately, most of these programs are just window dressing because the underlying organizational structure remains DP1. The trend in the U.S. is “to pretend you can have a self-managing group, with a supervisor who is relabeled as a trainer, leader, or coach when in truth responsibility hasn’t really been shifted to the team (Emery, F., 1995, p. 8)”. Changing a supervisor’s title doesn’t reap the benefits of self-management unless the organizational structure is changed to DP2. Cosmetic changes that don’t address the organizational structure eventually fail, leaving both management and employees sick of terms like self-management and empowerment. Cosmetic changes that don’t work also leave the organization vulnerable to grabbing the next hot management tool-of-the-month that inevitably comes along. No wonder employees groan when they hear about another new organizational initiative. OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. Overhaul Basics—Participative Design Participative design (PD) is the basic building block for creating a self-managing organization. It is a method for moving from a bureaucratic model to one in which people restructure their own workplace—no design is imposed. It is unique because the responsibility for coordination and control of work moves away from supervisors to the people actually doing the work. The vehicle for implementing the self-managing design is a one- or two-day event called the participative design workshop (PDW). Before any workshops are conducted, however, considerable planning and education are required. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. Think and Talk Time The transition from a DP1 to a DP2 is a profound change that requires absolute commitment from leadership and extensive education throughout the organization. It is critical that executives, managers, supervisors and team members have conceptual understanding of participative design principles. Team boundaries must be negotiated within the overall vision and mission of the organization. The roles of managers and supervisors must be carefully redesigned, and support must be provided to help them make the adjustments. Like any good initiative, the participative design process begins with an organization-wide communication and education process. This phase is more important than usual, however, because the result of the participative design process is a fundamentally new organization in terms of structure, culture and values. The outcome of this journey is heavily influenced by how clearly employees understand the design principles and concepts of self-management. Take time to make sure this happens. Education and planning varies from organization to organization, but should always begin with senior management. Union involvement should also begin at this point where applicable. Educational workshops, presentations and discussion groups help managers understand the differences between bureaucratic and participative structures, and how their outcomes differ. One way to educate managers is to conduct an abbreviated PDW to give them a chance to experience the process directly and assess its applicability. (Purser & Cabana, pp. 209-211) After working with management, facilitators conduct educational forums throughout the organization. Employees at all levels need time to assimilate the new concepts and learn about participative design. It is useful to distribute and discuss a Q&A booklet that addresses many of the typical concerns and questions employees will have. The Vision Thing Before embarking on a participative design process, the organization needs a clearly defined and compelling vision. Employees need to know where they are headed and why it is important. Ideally, the vision is established in a participatory process as well, so that widespread commitment and responsibility are achieved. An effective method for accomplishing this, also developed by Fred and Merrelyn Emery (Emery & Purser, 1996), is called the search conference. Search conference is a participative process that enables a large OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. group to collectively create a plan for the future that its members themselves will implement. OK, Some Rules are Necessary The final step before conducting PDW’s is the creation of minimum critical specifications against which all designs are developed and measured. Management must spell out specific written boundaries within which teams must work. Examples might include “no increase in staff” or “maintain the same level of customer satisfaction.” Minimum specifications might also include required outputs or quality levels from teams. Management must balance the need for guidance with the risk of creating too many “rules” that smother the creative process. These minimum specifications create boundaries within which teams are free to be responsible for the control and coordination of their own work. How Many, How Long? The PDW is a flexible process that can be adapted to fit organizational needs. Depending on the size and complexity of the organization, a PDW can last one or two days. The PDW usually consists of 20-35 people from the organization working in small groups. When a larger section of the organization is being redesigned, it is necessary to get wide participation that reflects a deep slice of the organization. The process requires one or two facilitators who have been trained in the PDW approach. Sufficient space for group movement, and plenty of flip charts for reports are needed. Where to Start? Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. The participative design process usually starts at the bottom, among naturally occurring sections of the organization such as teams, work units or departments. “Change the design principle first amongst people who collectively know their section of the organization and can readily get on with the work” (Emery, M., 1995, p.141). Once lower levels are redesigned and functioning, the higher organizational levels can be redesigned. Before starting a participative design process, it is important to have a written binding agreement for some reasonable time that the design will be DP2 rather than DP1. The agreement provides teams with the protection and freedom they need to assume responsibility for managing their own work. The Fine Print There are cautions to consider before embarking on the transition to a self-managed organization. Most important of these is the absolute need for understanding and commitment among top level management. Transformational change necessarily entails an increase in chaos and uncertainty in the short term, both antithetical to bureaucratic thinking and planning. Management commitment is, therefore, essential in order to support the organization through such difficult phases without jumping ship and returning to the relative safety of orgcharts and job descriptions. Although employees can redesign their work processes fairly quickly, the overall transition to self-management takes years, not weeks. Because of this, senior management must sustain a long term view. Commitment is also necessary because the OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. transition process will stimulate fear and resistance. Employees at all levels will understandably cling to the familiar rather than undertake a journey into unknown organizational territory. This is especially true for midlevel managers whose control functions will be absorbed by work groups. Often, mid-level managers will assume new roles, possibly becoming a group member with special skills or serving with other managers as trouble shooters and resources to work groups. The Participative Design Workshop First: Analyze The PDW begins with introductions and an overview of the agenda. Top management meets with the group briefly to review organizational purpose and the minimum critical specifications. Before the analytical work begins, the facilitator introduces the six critical human requirements for motivated work (Emery and Thorsrud, 1969) and explains how the designs of traditional work systems fail to satisfy these requirements. These six criteria (see sidebar) must be designed into the work structure for people to be fully responsible and committed to their work. The group creates a matrix that rates the extent to which their current jobs meet these six critical requirements. The facilitator also introduces the matrix for mapping team skills. The group creates a chart that compares the essential skills required by their work function to the existence of those skills among team members. Then, groups report their findings on both matrices and will use this information during the redesign phase to diagnose where gaps exist. Six Critical Requirements for Motivating Work Social scientists have identified six critical requirements as the core elements for building workplaces that are psychologically satisfying and motivating (Emery & Thorsrud, 1969). Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. Conditions 1-3 refer to the content of the job and need to be optimal for each individual’s needs and preferences. On a scoring matrix, these three work dimensions are rated from −5 (too little) to +5 (too much), with 0 (zero) being optimal. Conditions 4-6 relate to the social climate of the workplace. People can never get too much of these things. On a scoring matrix they are scored from 0 to 10, the highest score being optimal. 1. Autonomy People require elbow room. They need the sense that they have latitude and control over their work without someone breathing down their necks. Although some structure is necessary, people need to feel free to make decisions within that structure. 2. Learning Learning is possible only when people can set reasonable yet challenging goals and get feedback on their performance in time to make necessary adjustments. The opportunity to learn comes from facing challenges and getting feedback on results. The currently popular “learning organization” results from individual employees being provided the necessary conditions for learning to occur. OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. 3. Variety The need for variety differs from person to person, but everyone needs the opportunity to vary their work in order to avoid boredom and fatigue. Variety also means allowing people to set up their own satisfying rhythm of work in which they are most productive. 4. Mutual support and respect An atmosphere of collaboration is needed in which mutual support and respect are freely given without fear of anyone losing. A satisfying workplace results in cooperative efforts rather than competition. 5. Meaningfulness Meaningfulness derives from the quality of work and a sense of how it fits into the purpose or bigger picture of the organization. It also relates to the sense that one’s own work has worth to society. When jobs are meaningful in these ways, people feel pride and ownership of their work 6. Desirable future People need career paths that allow for personal growth and skill development. Dead-end jobs are demotivating. Opportunities to pursue aspirations and opportunities, on the other hand, are motivating to people. Second: Redesign Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. At the outset of the redesign phase, the facilitator presents the democratic design principle and explains how DP2 influences the six criteria for motivated work and how it relates to skill levels. Participants are now ready to focus on redesigning their structure. Groups start by drawing up rough outlines of their existing work flows and structure. These charts show how decisions are currently made and how closely the current structure resembles either bureaucratic or participative designs. Next, groups are ready to redesign their own structure to produce the best possible design for everyone. Their new designs will be measured against whether they enhance people’s critical psychological requirements, build flexibility through skill redundancy, and reduce bottlenecks in the workflow system. During a plenary session, groups present and compare their initial design options. Other groups give feedback and suggestions for improvements. The facilitator then provides a briefing on implementation practicalities and issues that must be taken into account in final designs. Based on this input, teams make additional adjustments to their designs. Third: Implement During this phase, groups develop a comprehensive and measurable set of goals and targets for their unit. Teams must develop their own full range of goals, addressing operational, business, human resources, and technical areas. The goals must be clear, realistic, and challenging. Initial team goals will still require negotiation with middle management to ensure targets are consistent with and support the overall organizational vision and goals. This is a key role for middle managers in self-managing organizations. Teams also will determine training requirements based on careful analysis of their skill matrices. In this fashion, teams develop their own training plans rather than having them imposed from above. At this point, teams specify additional organizational arrangements that will be required to OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. become self-managing. These might include feedback mechanisms, equipment, job rotation procedures, support needed from other groups, and staffing needs. There’s More Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. The PDW is just part of the ongoing redesign process. Other organizational systems must be adjusted to provide support for the new participative work structure. These changes may take considerable time to plan and implement. Communication systems have to be aligned with the new work teams to insure essential information and data is readily available to teams. This may require new data gathering and distribution systems. Self-managed teams and groups might need additional equipment or meeting space to fill their expanded functions. In some cases people may have to be moved to new locations to work more closely with newly configured teams. Human resources systems will need modification to fit the new organizational structure. Individual-based performance evaluation no longer fits in the team environment. New evaluation methods that hold teams accountable for outcome performance will have to be developed. Selection, orientation, and training issues will also need considerable attention. Finally, training support will be needed to help teams develop the skills and capacities to assume greater responsibilities. Mid-level managers and supervisors will need considerable training and support to help them adapt to their changing responsibilities in the new environment. The biggest source of failure in transformational change is that managers fail in their ability to change roles and provide the freedom and support self-managed teams require (Ghoshal and Bartlett, p.62). As noted, this group often fears the loss of status, authority and job clarity. What mid-level managers may gain, however, it the freedom to support work teams in more meaningful ways and contribute to company break-throughs by using their skills and experience in new and creative ways. New career paths often accompany or follow the transition to self-management. In a selfmanaging organization economic gains must be shared equitably with those responsible for performance improvements. Self-managing teams work hard to achieve their goals, and they expect their achievements to be compensated. Summary Although it continues to clunk along, and many of us figure out how to make the most of it, bureaucracy is an outdated workplace model. Self-management is a more effective approach much better aligned with today’s realities. Unlike cosmetic programs that espouse selfmanagement, truly self-managed organizations must change their underlying structure to DP2. The decision to do this is far reaching. Participative design is a process for getting to self-management. It is a unique approach that assumes the most effective organizational designs will come from those closest to the OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22. work. During the process, people redesign their own work, and do so with conscious knowledge about the two design principles, DP1 and DP2. Participative design does not change workflow or processes. Rather, it changes the organization’s underlying design structure to place greater responsibility for control and coordination in the hands of those doing the work. Such change is deep and systemic, affecting the entire organization. The PDW creates the ideal conditions for allowing people to design structures to become more selfmanaging. The resulting self-managing organization is more effective, productive, and flexible with employees who feel committed and responsible for achieving a shared vision. Copyright © 2012. AMACOM. All rights reserved. References Bunker, B. B, & Alban, B. T. (1997). Large group interventions. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers. Cabana, S. (1995, January/February). Participative design works, partially participative doesn’t, Journal for Quality and Participation 18(1), 10–19. Emery, F.(1995). Participative design: effective, flexible, and successful, now! Journal for Quality and Participation 18(1), 6–9. Emery, F., & Thorsrud, E. (1969). Form and Content in Industrial Society. London, UK: The Tavistock Institute. Emery, M. (1993). Participative design for participative democracy. Canberra, AU: Australian National University. Emery, M., & Purser, R. E. (1996). The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing. Emery, M. (1999). Searching: The theory and practice of making cultural change. Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Emery, M. (1998). Would the real participative design workshop (PDW) stand up please? Unpublished article in Introduction to the theory and practice of open systems thinking. Las Cruces, New Mexico State University International Institute for Resource Management. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C.,1997. The individualized corporation: A fundamentally new approach to management. New York, NY: HarperBusiness. Purser, P.E., & Cabana, S (1998). The self managing organization: How leading companies are transforming the work of teams for real impact. New York, NY: The Free Press. Rehm, R. (1999), People in charge: Creating self managing workplaces. Gloucestershire, UK: Hawthorn Publishing. OD, Network, OD. Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network, AMACOM, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/wilmcoll-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1043643. Created from wilmcoll-ebooks on 2018-10-15 06:56:22.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello!I have upl...


Anonymous
Super useful! Studypool never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags