SBenegaL

Category: Organizational Development ವ್ಯವಹಾರಿಕ ಉನ್ನತಿ

  • Characteristics of Prospector when attempting to handle adaptation cycles

    In the last blog, we took a closer look at the approach taken up by Defenders to handle the adaptation cycle challenges. We shall today move to the next of the categories – Prospectors.
    Continuing to understand our classification and their characteristics better we move on from Defenders to Prospectors. The prospectors in contrast to the defenders have a constant eye on new products and attempt reaching there cautiously. The following diagram is a summary of the characteristics of a Prospector.
    [do download the pic and read the complete text.. apologies for the small font]
    The diagram summarizes the characteristics of defenders (adapted from Miles and Snow – Organizational Strategy, Structure and Processes)

  • Characteristics of the Defender when handing an adaptation cycle

    In the last blog we categorized organizations based on their response to the various stages of the adaption cycle. In today’s blog we take a closer look at the approach taken up by Defenders to handle the adaptation cycle challenges.
    We began understanding the nature of a Defender organization by the way they perceive the various phases of the adaptation cycle. Given that they perceive the situation at hand very differently, it is pretty evident that the solutions they use to handle the challenges in each phase would also vary. Given the solution also varies across the actual intent of the organization at every phase would be pegged at a different level. 
    The following diagram summarizes the characteristics of defenders (adapted from Miles and Snow – Organizations Strategy, Structure and Processes)

    [do download the pic and read the complete text.. apologies for the small font]

    The points in here are pretty encrypted but if we think about this from the angle of how a defender would look at the problems in the phase, it would become pretty evident how this spans out.

  • Classifying organization based on their perspective of Adaption Phases

    In the last blog, we looked at how the organization could manage the adaptation cycle by considering the leading and lagging variables of the phase at hand. In today’s blog, we would do the pretty famous skill of what an analytical manager would do – categorize base on the patterns. 
    Based on the organization’s unique strategy to relate to its chosen market and its configuration of technology-structure-process that is consistent with the market strategy, we can classify the organization into 3 classes:
    1. Defenders
    2. Prospectors
    3. Analyzers

    Instead of defining these categories, I shall use the following table to increase our understanding about these:

    Since we have classified the categories for their behavior the environment, I think this would be the best way to understand the classification.

  • Managing the Leading and Lagging variables in an adapting cycle – Rationalize and Articulate

    As mentioned in the last blog, we discuss today about “Rationalization” and “Articulation”.  
    An old adage in Kannada says – “You cannot get a wooden pole standing if you are in deep slush!”. This reminds us constantly the importance of having a strong foundation and good bedrock to support any new initiative that one may take. The currently blog in many ways tends to communicate the same lesson to the reader.
    If one sits back and looks at the possibility of having an administrative system that could smoothly manage the organization’s current activities as well as allow the system to become ingradined with further innovation, it wouldnt be hard to realize that this is always a challenge. Having such an organization is definitely every manager’s love. To a large extent 3M does maintain this in its culture of intrapreneurship. One could also look at what needs to be done in the current context to move ahead addressing the challenge at hand, instead of only talking about innovation.
    If an organization is really serious about something like this, it needs to look at the system as having both the “lagging” and the “leading” components in the adaptation process. The organization would have to “rationalize” the lagging variable of the adaption process by developing appropriate structures and processes to materialize the strategic decisions taken up in the earlier phase of the adjustment process. As to take care of the leading variable, the administrative system must facilitate the organization’s furture capacity to adapt by “articulating” and reinforcing the path along which the innovation would have to move. 
    If we look at the TV case, the management revamped its approach towards planning, coordination and control processes to handle the “lagging” component, while to address the  challenge of “leading” variable the management got in a storng team for marketing and related activites. 

  • Engineering and Administrative Phases of Organizational Adaptation

    In the last blog we looked at the Entrepreneurial problem phase of the organizational adaptation process. In today’s blog we look at the next 2 phases- Engineering Problem and Administrative Problem.
    Engineering Problem
    The entrepreneurial problem when addressed would involve operationalization of the management’s solution – the creation of such a system is what the Engineering Problem summarizes. 
    The management would have to select an appropriate technology (in the management sense of the word, i.e. input-transformation-output process) for producing and distributing chosen products and services and to form new information, communication, and control linkages to ensure proper operation of the chosen technology  – These are what the system would encompass.
    One should also note that, the three problems don’t wait for a solution of the other to reach and then move it, Even as the Entrepreneurship Problem is in motion, the management would try to adapt a system giving rise to the Engineering Problem which when achieves some progress would attract the implementation of the Administrative system.  It is during the administrative phase that the actual form of the organization’s structure will be determined as the relation between the management – environment is formalized through formal processes for coordinating and controlling internal operations.
    In the TV case again, we find that the company’s redefinition of its domain required a change in its technology from mass-production technology to unit/small-batch technology!
    Administrative Problem
    The primary goal of most organizational administration is to reduce the uncertainty within the organizational system. It could also aim at rationalizing and stabilizing those activities which successfully solve problems faced by the organization during the other two phases. 
    The challenge at this phase doesn’t stop at rationalizing a model, to really succeed in the long run, the company would have to formulate and implement processes which would enable organizations to continuously innovate. 
    In the next blog, we shall look at this rationalization and Articulation process in a greater detail.

  • Entrepreneurship Problem in the organization’s adaptation process

    In the last blog, we looked at the types of challenges an organization could face when it attempts to adapt to the environment around. In today’s blog, we look at the first of these problems – “Entrepreneurial Problem”.
    The adapting cycle is most visible in the start-up organizations. These organizations are in a state of continuous flux, fighting for their survival with the environment in which they operate. They constantly grapple with the challenges at hand, with a lack of structure, processes etc. In a new organization, an idea (could also be called in the current context – “an entrepreneurial insight”), perhaps only vaguely defined at firs must be developed into an organizational domain: a specific good or service and a target market or market segment. 
    When looked into from the context of an ongoing organization, the entrepreneurial problem has another dimension – this is since the organization would have already found a set of solutions to its “engineering” and “administrative” problems. The entrepreneurial energy doesn’t easily get transferred primarily as a result of the stability that the organization would have achieved. If we relate the context with reference to TV case the initial struggle when the company attempted to modify its products and market was constrained by the existing production process and the expertise of the general manager and his staff.
    The entrepreneurial problem of adaptation cycle receives a logical end when the management accepts a particular product-market domain, and it become more evident when the organization commits resources to achieve the objectives relative to the domain. The commitment to entrepreneurial solution in the large ongoing businesses generally is sought through the development and projection of an organizational “image” that would define its market and the approach towards the market. GE’s commitment to only compete in markets where it would be number one or two and leave the others is one such creation of an “image”.

  • Problems of an Organization Adapting to change

    In the last blog, we had a case of TV which we would begin using for the next few blogs to understand the concepts of management. We begin today’s blog with the very famous question – Does strategy drive the organization structure or does the Organization structure drive the organization’s strategy. The school that believes Organization behavior is only partially preordained by the environmental conditions and that the choices which top management makes is critical determinants of organization process and strategy is called the strategic-choice school. 
    To link the context to the TV case, it would be easy to understand that TV had to experience a change in its products and markets, to handle these it had to change the technological processes, the administrative structure that used to plan, coordinate and control the company.
    The general focus over the next few blogs is again the process of organization adaptation which we call as the “adaptive cycle“. Specifically the adaptive cycle could be thought of as comprising of 3 problems listed next.
    The choices that the organization’s top management is many, but for the sake of simplicity to understand how the organization adapts to its changing environment, we could clarify the problem of Organization Adaptation into 

    1. Entrepreneurial Problem
    2. Engineering Problem
    3. Administrative Problem

    It would be hard to state where one problem ends and the other begins, and many a times the management of the organization would have to simultaneously handle multiple problems. Just for the sake of understanding these better it would be a good starting point to analyze these 3 separately.

  • Changing Environment – changing response

    In the last blog, we concluded the implications of history to a practicing manager. Now, before we continue with the next set of blogs on organization development, and their process of growth. Let us look at a small case, though a bit old it would be give us a good starting point for the discussion over the next few blogs.
    TV is a semi-autonomous division of a medium sized equipment manufacturing firm which is part of a large, highly diversified conglomerate. TV manufactures a line of heavy duty pumps and some components for fluid movement systems. The company does most of its own castings, makes many of its own parts and maintains a complete stock of replacement parts. TV also does special-order foundry work for other firms as its production schedule allows. 
    Until recently, TV had defined its business as providing quality products and services to a limited set of reliable customers. TV’s GM, a first-rate engineer who had spent most of his time in the machine shop and foundry, personified the company’s image of quality and cost efficiency. In the mid-90’s corporate management became concerned about both the speed and direction of TV’s growth. The management and staff at corporate headquarters began considering two new product and market opportunities, both in the energy field. Fluid movement systems required for nuclear power generation provided one of these opportunities, and the development of novel techniques for petroleum exploration, well recovery and fluid delivery provided the second. TV had in the past done some large for these markets, but the opportunity now clearly indicated growth opportunities. 
    TV initially moved towards exploiting these opportunities tentatively, the GM realized that the contract sales involved extensive planning, field-contact work, and careful negotiation. These didn’t suit the GM’s primary strength or his area of interest. The Parent organization moved the present GM to another position at the headquarters and in his place got a new manager with extensive background both in sales and engineering and who was adept at large-scale contract negotiations.
    Within a year of this changeover, TV landed several lucrative contracts, and more appeared to be in the offing. The new business created by these contracts, however, placed heavy coordination demands on company management, and while the organization’s technology (production and distribution system) has not been drastically revised over the past 2 years, workflow processes and the operational responsibilities of several mangers have changed markedly. Materials control and scheduling, routine tasks in the past are now complex activities, and managers of these operations meet regularly with the executive planning committee. Moreover, a rudimentary matrix structure has emerged in which various line manages undertake specific project responsibilities in addition to their regular duties. Key personnel addition have been made to the marketing department and more are planned, with particular emphasis on individuals who are capable of performing field planning and supervising and who can quickly bring new fluid systems to full operation. Budget of some of the older departments are being cut back, and these funds are being diverted to the new areas of activity.

  • Manager’s usage of history to predict the future

    Continuing from the last blog, where we began a discussion on the managerial implications of the understanding of history that we had developed, we today look at the next 2 implications for the manager.
    2. Recognize the Limited Range of Solutions
    It is common to find people who would love to use what they have already learnt! In organizations too when you are faced with a new revolutionary change – it is common to be tempted to use the technique that had succeeded the last time. This essentially would complicate problems since the current organization structure is in response to the earlier revolution and the current revolution has grown out of the processes and structure that have evolved through the adaptation learning from the last revolution – seasoned through the evolutionary phase in between. 
    The management should be prepared to dismantle the current structures before the revolutionary phase become extremely turbulent. Top managers too would have to realize that their management style are no longer appropriate and may even have to move out of the leadership positions.
    It is important to note that evolution stage is not an automatic stage; it is a contest for survival. The company would have to consciously introduce planned structures to solve the current crisis but also are fitted to the next phase of growth.
    3. Realize the Solutions breed new problems
    Historical determinants are very much the determinants of what happens to the company at a much longer date. This awareness would help managers to avoid the habit of “pinning the blame” on a current development. A well experienced practitioner would also be able to “predict” future problems – thereby effective solutions and coping strategies could be gotten running before the revolution gets out of hand. 

  • Historical Implications to the manager

    In the last blog, we summarized the various management practices that are prevalent in the various phases of organizational growth. Starting from the current blog, over the next few blogs, we shall look at what this means for the manager! 
    In a recent comment to the post, one of the readers of the blog had indicated that all this is pure “common sense”; this is really the proof that it is intuitive. However, it is really hard for the individual manager who is going through the phase to really realize the challenges that he is currently undergoing and act accordingly. Today’s blog and the next few to follow also deal about this issue. The first of these is:
    The manager should know where the organization is in the developmental sequence
    Recognizing the current stage of growth of an organization is very critical for the Top Management of the organization. This enables the organization to recognize when the time for change has actually arrived, or it may result in imposing a wrong solution to the issue at hand. 
    Many a times the top management tends to work against the tide, realizing the flow and move with it is a good approach to take! It is also important to note that every phase is essential, and in a way strengthens the organization through the learning that is accumulated at that phase, these learning are very essential to the success in the subsequent phases. 
    It would be wise to really let the revolution move in, it is these periods of tension, pressure, which create ideas and awareness that builds the platform for change in the future and acts as a reason for the introduction of the new managerial practices.