Here goes, Gordon.
My hat goes off to you. You have a difficult game to play.
Please excuse all the metaphors in this letter, particularly anyone from
Canada or the UK, where good English is in better repute.
> Egos and posturing are
> genuinely asserting themselves, even to the point of threats to resign if
> "their" approach was ignored.
Men are such babies. Let's admit it. Silently, of course. Not online.
> powerful CEO and COO
But are they effective? You don't have to answer, since this is a
semi-public forum, but perhaps he is putting too many monkeys on your back
that belong on his, like handling managers that want to 'act out' -
threaten to resign if their plan is not adopted. To me an effective CEO
would create a climate in which cry-babies count to 10 before threatening
to resign.
> their preferred "org chart."
I don't think organizational structure per se makes or breaks a company.
Accounting systems and information systems that sort the right monkeys to
the right backs are crucial, of course. If you have appropriate
accountabilities, who people report to become less crucial.
Would there be any way to set aside the current argument over the org
chart and focus on what metrics will be used to measure success and who is
accountable for what?
> Seven org chart options have been integrated and reduced to two - largely
> split along the regional-functional divide.
There are some problems that have no solutions at a particular point in
time, maybe this is one of them, at least in it's current scope.
Since this is a large company, is there any way to take some of the profit
centers or production plants or product groupings or whatever, and just
let them be for now? Call this 'Company A' . Don't focus any effort here
for the time being.
Take what is left over and reconfigure reporting relationships in a more
effective fashion. Call this 'Company B'. Perhaps 'Company A' will get the
message at some point down the road.
Which businesses to focus on? The ones with the greatest need of surgery
or the ones with managers who are the most flexible - most willing to
experiment with something new and gain notoriety for making it work.
Example: reconceptualize the organization as 'Asia' and 'All other'. The
person who is currently the highest ranking Asia hand in the Controller
Division now reports to the Asia chief, etc.
My experience is that these problems look like optimization problems, but
really they get down to personalities. If your Asia team is capable of
running its own show, then let them have their autonomy. If your European
team is weak, the home office will need to be more directive.
Back to the CEO an COO. Do they know their team well?
Good Luck.
> I'd be interested in hearing any practitioners recommendations.
>
> Gordon Housworth <ghidra@modulor.com>
--"David Miller" <djmill@ncinter.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>