What basic devices do organisations adopt for the co-ordination and control of work? According to Mintzberg, the glue holding organisational structure together involves:
co-ordination of work by process of informal communication. Control of work rests in the hands of the 'doers'. From the simplest organisations to the most complex - it works in extremely difficult circumstances.
NB Space shuttle project: elaborate divisions of labour - thousands of specialists. At the outset exactly sure what needed to be done.
Success depends groups/teams of specialists adapting to each other along an uncharted route - rather like a group of people rafting down a turbulent river.
- organisation outgrows its simplest state. Co-ordination by someone taking responsibility for the work of others -
NB In a rugby team players are distinguished by their work role and even physical requirements; wing-three-quarter, scrum-half, stand-off half, etc. Mutual adjustments do not fully suffice to co-ordinate their play so a captain is named to co-ordinate tactics on the field.
When the content of work is specified and programmed as a "system".
NB the assembly instructions provided with easy-build kitchen units. The manufacturer is standardising the work process of the assembler.
(Take the 2-inch screw and insert into LX while holding AD with your tight foot and at the same time balancing ...)
Routinisation of processes is commonplace. Witness
Standard processes facilitate machine control and systems which demand little direct supervision. Automation is possible. A worker on a TV assembly line requires but little supervision or even informal communication with peers (except to be sociable). Work co-ordination is "system" achieved.
Some work standards have discretion built in, e.g. a retail buyer may be permitted to buy up to £10,000 worth of goods each month, but otherwise left free to decide the range of goods to buy. A manager of a fast-food hamburger joint may hacve some discretion over staff rotas but none in terms of changing the menus or the decor and displays within the restaurant.
Are you ever disparaging about routinisation (bureaucratisation)? You may be failing to recognise the value gained.
Routinisation and bureaucratisation may reduce opportunities for independent action and creative expression but for those delivering and those receiving the results of routinisation the benefits are substantial in every aspect of life. The problem for the business person and the consumer is to safeguard against the dulling, conformist, mediocrity that routinisation thrusts upon us particularly when the routinised system is doggedly followed to serve the operators purpose. The fact of the matter may be that we continue to produce as routine our goods and services - but the world has moved on - no-one wants these goods and services any more. The goal-posts too will have been shifted by competitors who have an eye for a chance.
Some work or processes cannot be standardised. e.g. in social work or teaching. How could a Monarch control and co-ordinate the activities of colonial governors with such slow lines of communication? Control here comes through education and training and the sharing of values and ethical standards which inspire loyalty. Note that with the introduction of a national curriculum - that the discretion of teachers in what they teach decomes regulated (by standardisation of systems and procedures).
A similar case applies to a hospital administrator. It is very difficult for a high level general administrator to supervise and give directions to a doctor or surgeon. A manager of architects or social workers is in a similar position when it comes to many aspects of diagnosis, design and decision-making.
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.
The NVQ competences movement in the UK is an illustration of social engineering with a view to standardising skill attainment and accreditation nationally. Where diversity and laissez-faire sloppiness prevails - lets instill commonality! (... bit dubious and contentious...).
Professionalisation
The rigorous training that a doctor, solicitor, accountant or indeed a social
worker receives provides admission into the club of the profession with
its rules of behaviour and ethical values. Workers may appear to be wholly autonomous
when working, but "lines have been learned" and the organisation can
expect the highest levels of professional conduct and behaviour - externally regulated
and espoused by "chartered members". Such members of the organisation
are trusted and given more scope to act.
When the anaesthetist and surgeon meet to remove an appendix, they might communicate more frequently through a nod and a wink than more complex explanations and discussions. Through training they know what to expect of each other. If a doctor is seen by colleagues to be performing badly - colleagues are expected to give feedback and advise even to the extent of limiting the scope of the person's work.
Above all "members of the professions" are supposed to be self-evaluative and committed to keeping their knowledge and skills up-to-date (continuing professional development). Most importantly they must uphold the highest ethical values and to be critical of the way in which they carry out their duties.
The top professional bodies are permitted (privilege given by society) to be self-regulating. They set standards for admittance into the profession. They define their own educational curriculums and assess the performance of student candidates. They have established structures which meet to make judgments about and even discipline errant members. Society - allegedly - can be confident that these organisational members are reliable.
In organisations wanting to improve product and service design and deliver more complex operations - the value of employee know-how and problem-solving ability is generally recognised. Improving skill levels enables staff to undertake more complex work - guided by policies and (groomed) committment to the quality standards that are being sought - rather than direct and constant supervisory intervention. Here standardisation of processes and skills are conjoined.
With outputs defined, the fit between tasks is pre-determined and can be performance monitored. Work results can be specified by performance dimensions, conversion ratios, profitability and cost indicators, time.
Quality standards will be determined and implemented in a firm that is accreditted for ISO 9000. Taxi-drivers are not told how to drive or what route to take - only the address. They can be appraised on the basis that they do not get lost. We arrive at our correct destination on time and the rules on cab charges are applied correctly.
A project manager's performance outcomes are discussed with him/her. The plans and budgets are agreed, progress is monitored with a particular eye on the deliverables from each phase. Unrealistic project targets contribute to disappointment and disorganisation. They seldom motivate or secure committment - they breed disaffection.
A management by objectives approach was defined by Peter Drucker and John Humble in the late 1960's (see Humble, J, Improving Business Results, Pan and also Humble J, Management by Objectives in Action, McGraw Hill). The application of MbO/R approach can be seen for example in relation to the role of a sales person.
Corporate Management by Results
A conglomerate of subsidiaries controlled by a corporate parent company is typically managed by standardisation of outputs. The corporate HQ managers agree strategic objectives and plans/programmes with each subsidiary/division. This agreement is based on
The detail agreed in coporate divisional plans will determine the funding of specific strategic programmes and targets will be specified using a range of performance ratios:
Divisional Managers in a division interact with HQ managers over such performance standards. Management information systemws are installed to monitor divisional performances. There will be reviews of projects, quality, profits and growth levels each year. Heads of Department in a college are required to achieve targets within agreed budgets.
However divisional managers will be left to get on and manage their operation in a largely autonomous way.
Large groups are less able to co-ordinate informally. With further complexity, supervision becomes necessary.
Mintzberg suggests that an optimum stage can be reached and passed in terms of how managerial roles are differentiated. If there is a delay in reviewing and realigning roles - once they have evolved beyond an optimum stage, then decline in efficiency may be apparent. We may see group members, instead of applying their energy to key tasks, becoming diverted and spending too much time trying to work through the morass of interactions within a disparate group .
This hints at reasons for the practice of down-sizing in organisations and the adoption of matrix/project teams.
Are the mechanisms the same or do they vary? How?
