Rohit:
At 14:46 29/9/1997 -0400, RTalwarCBT@aol.com said:
>Replying to LO15137 --
>1. Why are threy re-organising - if the new org chart is the answer then what
>was the question?
The firm is no longer able to provide the two key [simultaneous]
competitive advantages for which it is known: fast response time and a
cradle to grave competency in their field. The org structure has been
frozen and dates from their "small firm" days before a major acquisition
binge.
>2. Have the CEO and COO expressed any views on what they want?
The COO is charged with this task and already has a specific org chart in
mind and was ready to publish it Ex Cathedra, which would have done
nothing to quell discord or get support and buy-in from the regional and
business unit managers. The COO is trying to change and has been
persuaded to let the subordinate managers have a go at it before imposing
his will, which the players would then distort to their respective ends.
In this very hierarchial firm, this brief window of opportunity will have
been seen to "fail" if the managers can't consense, and they will be back
to management by fiat. I was brought in at the eleventh hour.
>3. What are the success crtieria for the new organisation - maybe you could
>achieve some common ground first by getting the group to agree these first
>and then testing the different models against the criteria
Yes, I've had them list the dozen plus drivers and are now having them
weight each driver and then rate how well each competing org structure
performs against each driver. If they still can't consense, then at least
we disclose the existence of still-hidden drivers.
>4. why is this the last chance - I read into your text that this is the first
>time these issues are really being addressed - is it being too ambitious to
>try and address them in one go?
See above and yes, I feel that the expectations of the COO are unrealistic
but this organization has no other means of comparison. As it is, we've
shown progress and surprisingly have been given a bit more time. (The
talent pool of the individual managers is actually quite good.)
>5. Has anyone talked about what behaviours and outcomes need to change in the
>new org chart? Is there a risk that the chart changes titles and reporting
>lines but leaves a number of problems intact and creates new ones?
Yes to the former, but in the hierarchy of positions, interests, and
feelings, as you might expect in such an organization, we've barely begun
to unravel the fragile 'position' constructs. Absolutely to the latter,
and that is why we're talking about processes and 'confidence building
measures' to support the org chart so as not to produce a stillborn
entity.
>6. Are the problems deeper cultural and / or process problems that require
>more fundamental review of the hard and soft aspects of how work gets done
>rather just who manages it?
I believe so, but I doubt that there will be enough time to find them.
>7. Is there a challenge coming from competitors / customers / other
>stakeholders around which you can unite this diverse group?
Repeating Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us." They face
increasingly valid threats as well as consolidation, yet a repeatedly
direct statement of these issues as not as yet pierced the veil. This
forthcoming reorg will likely see them through the next two years and will
be the structure and supporting process that allows them to weather
competition and consolidation - all the more astonishing that such results
are expected in such a short time.
>8. what is the commercial strategy - does this require changes to achieve it?
I can't speak to this publicly, but if they put some rigor in their
project selection process, then yes, I believe their commercial competency
is sound.
>9. What are the personal agendas of those involved - has the organisation any
>role models of individuals sacrificing their path to the top for the sake of
>the greater good?
Laughter may overtake me here.
>10. What are the key measures by which individuals in this group get judged
>and rewarded - does team work and collective decision making get rewarded
>over 'MVP' - I suspect not from what you've said.
Bottom line first, last and always; short term and long term.
>11. are ther opportunities to test the new structural models in Pilots - are
>there any external comparisons / models that can be used?
Already en route are the pertinent Harvard case studies and HBR articles
to try to shift some attitudes and promote risk taking. I doubt this
culture permits pilots and trials in which very senior management can be
seen "to not know the way."
>I find in highly charged situations
>that if we get buy in to the process, the personal agendas can be eroded if
>people feel they've had their share of voice but have lost out 'objectively'.
Amen to that. Unfortunately we're playing for the highest of corporate
stakes without any "training wheels" or the time to redefine the
negotiation playing field (although we're trying to at least prepare them
to do so in the future: In the emergency ward triage that defines most
negotiation, the parties are highly emotional, stakes are high, egos are
at risk, and there is little time to build constituencies and identify
solution sets. The chances for success can be limited.
The best negotiation takes a longer view and is both preemptive and
preventative. In this preemptive or preventative condition, there is time
for discovery and defusing of issues, stakes and egos have yet to reach
the flash point, and there is ample time to build constituencies, and to
develop and test options. The chances for success can be very great.
Sir Harold Nicholson described diplomacy as "the understanding that for
intractable problems there are only adjustments and not solutions."
Americans are resistant to that idea and too often paint a scenario into
black and white, seeking a single, lasting (and implicitly moral/right)
solution. Other than by force-of-arms, it's difficult to find such a
solution that works for diverse stakeholders, overcomes a history of
accumulated slights and resentments, and engenders a negotiation process
that's not resented by one or more stakeholders.
I'm trying to get them to look ahead peremptorily and keep adjusting,
respecting the core interests of all parties, and structuring their event
horizon to create a series of confidence-building successes. Doing so
will prevent pressures from building up in the fault line and spare their
organization the pain of a massively corrective earthquake.
Best regards, Gordon Housworth
Intellectual Capital Group
ghidra@modulor.com
Tel: 248-626-1310
http://www.modulor.com
--Gordon Housworth <ghidra@modulor.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>