Two Risks to Organizational Change (7/12/2009 by TQM Doctor)
One of the downside risks to organizational change is a culture than cannot support the change strategy (Tosti, 2007). Even if management designs a superior process, the behaviors of the individuals within the process have more of an effect on success than design of the process. Decisions, habits, and practices guided by the motives of a culture have a stronger effect on action than does a process. Tosti suggested that change managers consider how individuals prefer to behave before asking them to behave differently in a new process. Of course, change mangers can attempt to change a culture, but that is a different subject.
Due to the overwhelming inertia of culture, the most prevalent situation is that the culture drives the business model. The degree culture serves as a business model driver directly relates to the prevalence of laissez-fair attitudes in top management. For example, in a situation where top management plays little or no part running the business, the culture will control the business model almost completely. Conversely, even with highly involved transformational leadership, culture is still difficult to change. This is one reason the most effective leaders of today are change leaders. All this may seem axiomatic but it could still form the basis of a decent research project.
Another risk to organizational change is excluding employees from the planning and decision processes (Furst, 2008). Recent studies reported that including employees in these processes increases support for change and increases trust. Furst suggested that one reason for lack of employee support for management change efforts is mistrust in the motives of the manager. Including employees in the planning and decision processes mitigates the mistrust by offering a clear picture of true managerial motives.
References
Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 453-462.
Tosti, D. T. (2007). Aligning the culture and strategy for success. Performance Improvement, 46(1), 21-25.
Ten Leadership Styles (7/10/2009 by TQM Doctor)
The following is a short review of notable leadership styles.
Authoritarian (autocratic). Authoritarian leadership types reserve decision-making authority for themselves, and are more concerned with job completion than the needs of their employees (Bass, 1990). Similarly, these leaders discourage individual opinions and contributions to decisions. Authoritarian leaders supply the rules, rewards, punishment, and some even demonstrate characteristics of charismatic leaders.
Participative (democratic) . The participative leadership style is supportive of project teams (Escriba-Moreno, Canet-Giner, & Moreno-Luzon, 2008). The degree of participative leadership relates to the amount of project team autonomy and control of resources. Bass (1990) describes participative leaders as those who create an environment where followers feel free to participate in discussions relating to making decisions and solving problems while the leader remains active in the discussion as an equal.
Delegation. When leaders delegate, they are moving the decision authority for an issue or activity to a lower organizational level although delegation is not an abdication of responsibility (Bass, 1990). Managers remain responsible for the decision, objective, and verification of completion. Managers who delegate encourage their employees to learn and practice control, planning, and the ability to set direction.
Bureaucratic. A bureaucratic leader will simplify systems down to basic steps so unskilled labor can perform the tasks (Scott & Davis, 2007). The workers in bureaucratic systems are less expensive to replace and the job requires relatively simple training for new hires. A downside of such a technocratic bureaucracy is that process maintenance can be costly and hidden costs exist relating to high employee turnover.
Charismatic. Charismatic leaders present a lucid vision, possess abundant self-assurance, are agents of change, are sometimes eccentric, and are realistic about the constraints of their environment (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2009). The primary actions of charismatic leaders include the demonstration of confidence leading to motivating followers, acting as role models, perpetually communicating goals and vision, and building an inspiring image.
Laissez-fair (free reign). Laissez-fair leadership is an impaired form because it describes a manager who does not manage or lead (Bass, 1990). Compared to delegation, the laissez-fair leader does not attempt to understand problems or goals before delegating. Relating to management by exception, the laissez-fair leader does not look for abnormalities or become involved when exceptions are apparent. Neither does the laissez-fair leader spend much time with subordinates attempting to create consensus like a participative leader.
Servant. The concept of servant-leader is a blending of servant with leadership characteristics (Greenleaf, 2002). The specific traits of servant-leadership include, “. . . active listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building” (McCuddy & Cavin, 2008, p. 107). Greenleaf emphasizes that a fundamental aspect of a servant leadership is the desire to be a servant before a leader.
Task-oriented. Task-oriented or directed leaders are a type of authoritarian (Bass, 1990). These leaders create structure, share information, determine the work to accomplish, communicate regulations, promise incentives for compliance, and threaten penalties for defiance.
Transactional. The practice of transactional leadership is the trading of something of value for something of equal value between two individuals (Burns, 1979). The individuals involved have a common purpose to the extent defined by the perceived value of the trade with no enduring relationship. In business environments with existing employees, a transactional leader will use reward systems to encourage desired behavior and punishment systems to discourage the opposite.
Transformational. Transforming leadership occurs when followers and leaders encourage heightened degrees of morality and motivation in each other (Burns, 1979). Therefore, both the leaders and followers share the benefit of transforming leadership. The aspects of a transforming leader include (a) encouraging awareness of vision, (b) followers who gain greater abilities and potential, (c) persuading followers to use new perspectives, (d) and successfully promoting the interests of the team above those of the individual (McLaurin & Al Amri, 2009). Specific practices of a transforming leader include acting as a role model, creating a culture of empowerment, establishing a vision, communicating the vision, and driving change.
References
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Brunsson, K. H. (2008). Some effects of Fayolism. International Studies of Management & Organization, 38(1), 30-47.
Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Escriba-Moreno, M. A., Canet-Giner, M. T., & Moreno-Luzon, M. (2008). TQM and teamwork effectiveness: The intermediate role of organizational design. Quality Management Journal, 15(3), 41-59.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power & greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Luria, G. (2008). Controlling for quality: Climate, leadership, and behavior. Quality Management Journal, 15(1), 27-40.
McCuddy, M. K., & Cavin, M. C. (2008). Fundamental moral orientations, servant leadership, and leadership effectiveness: An empirical test. Review of Business Research, 8(4), 107-117.
McLaurin, J. R., & Al Amri, M. B. (2008). Developing an understanding of charismatic and transformational leadership. Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict. Proceedings, 13(2), 15.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Systems Perspective for Performance Indicators (7/8/2009 by TQM Doctor)
A systems perspective can provide guidance in choosing appropriate performance indicators. For example, using a balanced scorecard concept, companies can create a balanced perspective between current performance—using financial results—with indicators of future performance, like customer satisfaction (Kunc, 2008). Therefore, an appreciation and understanding of systems thinking can guide organizations towards metrics describing systems that are more complete.
Beyond the balanced scorecard, scholars suggest that organizations should design performance measurements systems with explicit causal linkages within and between other systems (Kunc, 2008). Management would then possess the ability to form a more complete understanding of the association between strategic objectives and their chosen metrics. A causal loop diagram, used to illustrate interrelated systems and process metrics, helps identify systems and factors not intentionally related to objectives, which still may have a strong influence on the system.
Reference
Kunc, M. (2008). Using systems thinking to enhance strategy maps. Management Decision, 46(5), 761.
Hawthorne Study Criticism (7/6/2009 by TQM Doctor)
The ideological critics of the Hawthorne studies objected that the results provided an incomplete social perspective ignoring opposing stakeholder interests (Jeffrey, 1985). Additionally, the critics also stated that the study results conveyed a strong management bias for manipulating employees. In defense of the study, Landsberger demonstrated that Elton Mayo and his later publications deserve most of the ideological criticism—while the main descriptive results of the study, produced by Roethlinsberger and Dickson—suggest a strong concern for past social inadequacies.
The methodological critics focus primarily on the part of the Hawthorne study related to the relay test room while disregarding or belittling the five other elements (Jeffrey, 1985). Of the relay test room, the primary four complaints are (a) inadequate sample size, (b) insufficient controls, (c) inadvertent incentive plan changes, and (d) participant number changes throughout the study. Although the complaints are valid, they are no different than what Roethlinsberger and Dickson already reported in the study results. Additionally, Roethlinsberger and Dickson began working with the study after it was designed and initiated by other researchers.
In summary, and ignoring Mayo’s later writings, the study results were written in a manner to suggest new hypotheses for future study rather than to contest existing theory (Jeffrey, 1985). The preeminent industrial psychological ideology at the time of the study was Scientific Management (Hoopes, 2003). Additionally, before the results of the Hawthorne experiment were published, the primary focus of behavior science was the study of abnormal behavior (Suojanen, 1963). Therefore, whether the critics are right or wrong and even if Elton Mayo produced unsupported scientific conclusions using the Hawthorne results, the study was pivotal to organizational sociological research.
References
Hoopes, J. (2003). False prophets: The gurus who created modern management and why their ideas are bad for business today. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Jeffrey, A. S. (1985). Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6(2), 111.
Suojanen, W. W. (1963). Management theory: Functional and evolutionary. Academy of Management Journal, 6(1).
The Art of Not Listening (7/1/2009 by TQM Doctor)
A friend of mine has a unique approach to not listening; he turns and walks away in the middle of statements made by others. I believe there are a lot more people out there like this; his uniqueness lies in his honesty. For example—instead of turning away, like my friend—many people go glassy-eyed when they stop listening. Others become fidgety while they spend mental muscle thinking about what they are going to say next. I have another friend that says, “ok, ok” when she really means, “I don’t care what you said, I have a better idea.” Other individuals provide visible clues to not listening. One medical doctor I know has a strange tic where his head vibrates back and forth because he is not the one talking. I got the clue.
John Launer wrote about a psychologist with a very direct approach that brings his patients straight to the point (2007). Although many of us understand the virtues of listening, the psychologist says that not listening is a skill that saves him and his patients a lot of time. Unfortunately, even though the doctor is fast at getting to the point, he makes others feel as though they are trudging along instead of being able to make a point themselves. One of the lessons is that there are times and people where brevity and making a point quickly are valuable. Besides, the ability to make our point quickly also infers clarity of thinking that many people lack. If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m one of the trudgers. :)
Reference
Launer, J. (2007). The art of not listening. QJM, 100(8), 537.
Process Measurement Risks (6/29/2009 by TQM Doctor)
Deming described process measurement (data analysis) as the “Voice of the Process” (Staton-Reinstein, 2005, p. 9). One of the risks to process measurement is that employees may believe they are being measured instead of the process. Additionally, misguided management may adopt a similar attitude and therefore, attempt employee-based remedies to improvement rather uncover and resolve the root-cause of process problems. Another risk to process measurement is the Hawthorn effect, where employees that believe they are being watched and measured work harder (Hoopes, 2003).
Reference
Hoopes, J. (2003). False prophets: The gurus who created modern management and why their ideas are bad for business today. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Staton-Reinstein, R. (2005). Deming deja vu: What today's quality professionals can learn from the quality pioneers. Journal of the Quality Assurance Institute, 19(3), 4.
Team Performance Risks (6/29/2009 by TQM Doctor)
Although teams can be very effective, management and team members should be mindful of possible problems so they can be addressed promptly. Some of the risks to team performance include beliefs of unfair treatment, anxiety about a higher workload, doubts concerning management backing, and vague team responsibilities (Kirkman, Jones, & Shapiro, 2000). Standardized team performance assessments may provide clues for the existence of these risks so management or team leadership can attempt corrective action.
Reference
Kirkman, B. L., Jones, R. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Why do employees resist teams? Examining the "resistance barrier" to work team effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management (1997-2002), 11(1), 19.
Organizational Congruence (6/28/2009 by TQM Doctor)
Congruence is, “the degree to which the needs, demands, goals, objectives, and/or structures of one component are consistent with those of the other” (Nadler & Tushman, 1997, as cited in Bezboruah, 2008, p. 130). Organizational congruence and performance are directly related. Therefore, organizations that pursue alignment between goals, purpose, and methods work together more effectively, which relates to higher performance. Bezboruah describes the congruence model with the three components of envisioning, energizing, and enabling. These components are very similar to the dissatisfaction change model (Beer, 1987).
According to Beer (1987), the key to providing an integrated leadership approach is to create three conditions: (a) dissatisfaction with existing practices, (b) a desirable model of a future state (envisioning), and (c) a path of change from the current to the future system (energizing and enabling). The only part missing in the congruence model is creating dissatisfaction with the future state. The dissatisfaction model appears to be more complete and is crucial to creating a common purpose that aligns system, teams, and individual style.
References
Beer, M. (1987). Revitalizing organizations: Change process and emergent model. Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 51-55.
Bezboruah, K. C. (2008). Applying the congruence model of organisational change in explaining the change in the Indian economic policies. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 5(2), 129-140.
Content Anlysis (6/14/2009 by TQM Doctor)
Although the content analysis section of Organizational Surveys (Church, Waclawski, & Kraut, 2001) presented a simple method, it did remind me that this form of analysis could be a refined art. Elo and Kyngäs (2008) concluded that either inductive or deductive approaches to content analysis are useful dependent on the situation and objective. This led me back to basic logic and our use of conditional argument patterns when performing content analysis. The implication is that content analysis is the application of logic and that individuals performing analysis may improve their skills by understanding the basic premise of logical reasoning.
References
Church, A. H., Waclawski, J., & Kraut, A. I. (2001). Designing and using organizational surveys: A seven-step process. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Technological Innovation Forecast (Updated 6/6/2009, Original 3/2/2009 by TQM Doctor)
The rate of technological innovation increases with every generation (Cetron & Davies, 2008). Change is no longer the standard; rather the increasing rate of technological change is now the rule. The forecast of technological innovation is that future generations will experience more rapid change than the current generation. Gary Hamel, London Business School visiting professor and Management Innovation Lab director, asserts that change is happening faster than organizations can adapt (Collins, 2008). Since specific changes are difficult to predict, the prudent plan for organizations is to ensure they not only can withstand unpredictability but can also profit from change.
Organizations will face unique challenges where traditional management responses prove ineffective (Barsh, 2008). Successful responses will require reorganization of talent and new management models to encourage innovation at all levels of the company. Therefore, the improvement of management methods required to cope with the rapid rate of technological innovation will encourage changes in organizational behavior and relationships.
Innovation as an Organizational Capability
Two issues exist that prevent organizations from instilling an innovative capability (Hamel, 2003). The first is that most management possess too narrow of an understanding of what constitutes innovation. The most common understanding of innovation relates to products and services rather than all parts of the organization (Hamel). The second issue is that most organizations focus on maintaining or optimizing “what is” rather than “what could be.”
Compartmentalized innovation is the concept of change behavior made within predefined processes and groups or departments (Hamel, 2003). A common interpretation is that the marketing department must establish customer requirements and the engineering department must deliver the expected “innovation.” For example, if a product improvement idea came from outside the predefined interrelationship of marketing and engineering, management will likely reject the idea because it did not originate from the proper location. Hamel refers to these compartmentalized interrelationships as innovation ghettos and suggests new organizational architectures preventing such bias.
Most organizations focus on the reality of “what is” rather than of possibility of “what could be” (Hamel, 2003). Powerful groups form within all levels of the organization that are more comfortable with the understanding of what they are rather than what the company is becoming. In these environments, innovations are those miracles that occur despite, rather than encouraged by, the current systems (Hamel). For example, a common statement would be, “We answer most of our phone calls everyday despite the system.” Management must create innovative systems and architectures encouraging the pursuit of “what could be.”
For true innovation to exist, management must recognize that many different variables characterize their business concept (Hamel, 2003). Examples of these variables include the value proposition, method of market entry, definition of market served, and the organizational core competencies. Management must understand how each piece of the organization fits together, continually relearn the element and its place within the whole, and challenge each element in a never-ending learning loop (Argyris, 2002; Hamel).
Management Innovation
Management innovation is the development and implementation of new and original management practices, structures, systems, or methods for the pursuit organizational goals (Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol, 2008). External or internal influences should initiate a four-step management innovation process (Birkinshaw et al.). The general stages of the process are: (a) recognition of a problem or threat, (b) formation of a new idea or practice, (c) experimentation, and (d) implementation.
Hamel served as keynote speaker during the Financial Times conference held in November 2007 in London. During his speech, Hamel argued that management innovation is the most durable and justifiable form of innovation since it has led to most performance advances in the U.S. (Collins, 2008). Hamel blamed the lack of innovation on the current management model originating from the 19th century command and control concept (Collins). The command and control model assumes a generally uneducated workforce, which the current reality contradicts.
Hamel suggests that management innovation must tackle the large issues first, like growing at twice the GNP or getting all employees involved with innovation (Collins, 2008). A common method of implementing management innovation involves new organizational architectures dealing with specific problems or otherwise aimed and improving efficiency (Birkinshaw et al., 2008). Top management also strategically modifies architectures with the goal of addressing quality issues, improving customer satisfaction, lowering costs, and improving efficiency (Birkinshaw et al.). The phrase strategic architecture refers to the infrastructure required for the allocation of resources that consistently supports an organizational culture encouraging: (a) teamwork, (b) the ability to change, (c) a readiness to share resources, (d) the protection of proprietary technologies, and (e) the ability to work towards long-term goals (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990 as cited in O'Shannassy & Hunter, 2009).
Summary
Organizations will spend time and resources developing or otherwise pursuing the next emerging technology. Unfortunately, the pursuit most often occurs with far from certain knowledge that corporate efforts are not wasted. The most trustworthy technological innovation forecast is that organizations will experience more innovative change tomorrow than they do today (Cetron & Davies, 2008). Therefore, leadership must ensure their organizations are forward-looking focusing on the “what could be” rather than the “what is” (Hamel, 2003). Management must implement strategic organizational architecture that promotes productive interrelationships and intra-relationships breaking the molds of existing innovation ghettos (Hamel, 2003).
References
Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 206-218. Retrieved 2/25/2009, from Business Source Complete database.
Barsh, J. (2008). Innovative management: A conversation with Gary Hamel and Lowell Bryan. McKinsey Quarterly (1), 24-35. Retrieved 2/25/2009, from Business Source Complete database.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825-845. Retrieved 2/25/2009, from Business Source Complete database.
Cetron, M. J., & Davies, O. (2008). Trends shaping tomorrow's world. Futurist, 42(3), 35-50. Retrieved 3/25/2008, from MasterFILE Premier database.
Collins, L. (2008). Firms ride innovation's emotional rollercoaster. Paper presented at the Financial Times Conference, London.
Hamel, G. (2003). Innovation as a deep capability. Leader to Leader, 2003(27), 19-24. Retrieved 2/25/2009, from Business Source Complete database.
O'Shannassy, T., & Hunter, P. (2009). Management consultant's guide to how strategic architecture can improve an organisation's "bottom line". Singapore Management Review, 31(1), 33-47. Retrieved 2/25/2009, from Business Source Complete database.