David:
At 20:43 29/9/1997 -0400, David Miller said:
>> 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.
Buttressed by the stockholders, they believe themselves to be effective
based upon financial performance, yet it is so difficult to get all but
the most enlightened management to accept the reality that finance
performance is a lagging indicator of performance, a result of actions
taken in the past, and only a tangential indicator of future performance.
>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.
Agreed, if intent, awareness, and supporting processes are in place. In
my opinion, they are not yet in place to overcome old behavior.
>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?
See parallel post in reply to Rohit Talwar.
>> 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.
Amen, again, see parallel post in reply to Rohit.
>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.
As I understand the words, that's the situation now in place due to topsy
growth.
>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.
I can't see a way of isolating any units due to the high level of
interaction and project overlap, unless they resort to significant
stockpiling of parallel resources - which would adversely impact their
pressure for financial performance, short term and long term.
>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.
I fear this is also a primary driver. In embarking on a process of
isolating desired organizational characteristics and then rating the
current and proposed org chart against them, I hope to smoke a series of
hidden drivers.
>Back to the CEO and COO. Do they know their team well?
They've been together for some time, so at least they've had time to
settle into their dysfunctional family roles, but I wonder if they really
know each other well.
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/>