Things I Can’t Forget – No. 57 Unleash Employees: How to Achieve a Coordinated Organization To get the most out of an organization, management has to develop it, and developing it requires hard work and skill. It also requires a departure from traditional ideas about control. Because more managers and boards are recognizing this, more fully coordinated organizations are emerging. These organizations have developed characteristics and qualities that are worth emulating. What are some indicators which disclose that an organization lacks coordination and needs some serious introspection? ■ Are there longstanding and constantly irritating problems? ■ Is there repetitive negative criticism about peers, seniors, and/or subordinates? ■ Are vested interests subverting the mission? ■ Do bosses expect subordinates to always work through them when solving problems across organization lines? Can department heads coordinate with each other to change procedures? ■ Do subordinates constantly depend upon their bosses? ■ Is recognition rare for problem solving and extra effort? ■ Do feedback systems inform primarily the top managers rather than the middle managers? ■ Does the distribution of resources (ie. new equipment, space, staffing) frequently reflect favoritism? ■ Do internal politics play a heavy role in decision making? ■ Is the opportunity rare for the key managers to come together in a problem solving mode with privacy, honesty, and mutual trust? ■ Are few or none of the managers also mentors? ■ Is there friction leading to factions, and vice versa? ■ Is close and continuous accountability required? ■ Are personal goals, true departmental purposes/goals, and the overall mission self-serving and in conflict? ■ Are significant training programs uncommon for all levels of employees? ■ Is there a high turnover rate? ■ Is sick leave abused? ■ How ingrained in the culture of the organization are the problems identified above? Some of these questions can be more easily answered than others. Some will require a close examination of the organization, probably with outside, objective observers. An unusual and instructive example of an organization that became coordinated, then lost it, and then regained it, is a large Medical College in southern United States. The reasons for the changes are significant. A number of years ago (before quality became a buzz-word), the middle managers at MC operated under the conviction that they were restricted from changing or improving the way things were done: We are a state facility, and they wont let us do that was a common justification for leaving things alone even when it was obvious they didnt work. With the intervention of a professional facilitator, a remarkable domino-effect resulted from a discussion group of managers reviewing a study done in one department with problems affecting 15 others. The frustration level was so high that complete honesty propelled the middle managers through all four stages of the forming-storming-norming-performing process in short order. Along the way there was some fist-shaking and shouting, but the managers processed their differences, and were ready to work together. It was as though they had been waiting for the opportunity. The group took the recommendations of the study, improved upon them, added more, and implemented them all. When they were finished, they asked if they could work on other projects. What followed were problem solving training programs, and then the establishment of the Middle Management Committee. Over the following years this group helped transform the culture of the organization from we cant to we can and will. They were fully committed without any coercion. MC became a coordinated organization. The middle managers involved the people working for them and problems were solved across organizational lines without having to go up and down the organizational structure. When something didnt work, they fixed it. When a problem arose, the response was quick, committed, and effective. They changed systems that worked well to make them work better. They approached a total quality process before the term was even known in the United States. Unfortunately, successive changes in top management (and management styles) followed. The prevailing top management style relied upon control and strict vertical communication. Managers soon perceived threats to their own security and began to work toward their own survival first and the organizations second (if at all). The Middle Management Committee withered and died. Coordination declined. Then, there was another turnaround. Under the leadership of a new CEO in the mid-80s, a new Middle Management Council emerged, giving renewed emphasis and direction to the development of the managers and the organization. The Council was composed of middle management leaders trained in problem-solving and organized to resolve operational problems. As the facility goes through modernization, the entire management team has become part of the process, and they involve others at all levels. In many organizations, managers place considerable emphasis on the bottom line, but overlook other aspects of the organization that are at least of equal importance. In fact, if financial success is perceived to be synonymous with well-being, the organization could be on the road to failure before anyone becomes aware of it. Administration must give attention to those other aspects of the organization; boards need fuller information to assess the fitness of the organization; a total team effort is required. The coordinated organization starts with the C.E.O. who, in turn, gets direction from the board. Many boards look only at the end result, not the process. Coordination is an organizational process first, with results naturally following. Boards who understand this will make sure that the skills acquired by their chief executive officers include the ability to make the transformation to the coordinated organization, weeding out candidates who are gravity-feed (top-down) managers. The transformation is a team effort. It is the prerequisite for Total Quality Process, Total Cost Control, Total Guest Relations, Total Systems Development, Total Training, and a host of other programs that should be permanent processes. The Coordinated Organization can start anywhere, but for it to grow and last, it must have impetus from the top. Such transformations have taken place in a number of organizations, some that had to correct deep-seated conflict and authority problems. In one classic example of failure, the answers to all the questions at the beginning of this article were yes. To make matters worse, there was no chance of change occurring because the problem started with the board and greed was inbred. Ultimately, the organization went bankrupt. A set of new owners was formed, but they included some of the old, and the same mistakes have been repeated. Personal interests and survival infect the entire operation, and survival of the organization has become secondary. Preparation is once again being made for sale or Chapter 11. The owners failed to understand that leadership sets the example in giving to or taking from the operation. What must be done to effect the change to a coordinated organization? After reviewing the previous list of indicative problems, the next step is to look at the culture of the organization. The culture reflects the personality, and influences decisions and operations throughout the organization, even in satellites. ■ How is the leadership perceived? ■ Is the leadership mission at odds with the stated mission? ■ How do top and middle management function? ■ Does top management insist on being involved in all decisions? ■ What are the actual versus the stated objectives of the various managers? ■ Is the mission of the organization reinforced by the departmental objectives (the real ones) and the personal goals of the employees? ■ How do individual employees function, especially from the point of view of their skills, roles, and personal purposes in the workplace. ■ How is authority used or misused? ■ How are resources allocated? ■ Are there obvious instances of favoritism? ■ What is the timeliness of technology? ■ How does information flow (especially dealing with directions, problems, quality, and costs)? ■ What vested interests exist (are decisions made on the basis of personal profit or gain)? Obviously, some of this information will have to be unearthed by neutral parties. A consultant who understands the issues can usually do the job in four to six weeks. Invariably, some facts will surface that are not complimentary. A plan of correction must be developed and adhered to. If it isnt, the organization will remain impaired and never achieve total commitment. Top management frequently places a barrier between itself and the vast resources of middle management and its pool of knowledge. The board and the CEO must understand the value of pulling all employees, especially the middle managers, into the decision process. There is no place where this is more important than in problem solving. In the principles of organization development, this is referred to as making decisions at the level of knowledge. The commitment that can result from this can turn any organization around if there is appropriate training, motivation, and management follow-through. Like a dormant seed waiting for the right climate, the potential for the right kind of commitment is in all organizations. ****
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:08:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015