Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1-3 (ISPI/Handbook of Improving...

E1C07_1 10/14/2009 177

S SCHAPTER SEVEN

OrganizationalRestructuring

Sally Lollie

Hillary Leigh

INTRODUCTION

While the colloquial idea is that form follows function, we might also include

something of the notion of circumstance. This is because, on an organizational

level, the architecture of an organization is its response to the conditions in which

it exists. More specifically, organizational structure can be equated with the

configuration of its components and relationships among them. Sometimes these

arrangements reflect the reporting relationships of individuals, teams, or depart-

ments within the organization, and at other times these structures illustrate the

process relationships within a supply chain. This chapter frames organizations in

the structural perspective and suggests a six-step process to align organizational

structures with the achievement of meaningful results. We will explore concepts

that support the analysis and design of effective organizational structures through

a description of types of structure, issues for their management, and of factors for

their variation. We also present a six-step process for design, development, and

implementation. While this chapter predominately views organizational structur-

ing and restructuring as proactive organizational design intervention, we will also

emphasize its utility as a supportive strategy to managing any change initiative.

DESCRIPTION

There are multiple ways to conceive of an organization. Quite famously, Gareth

Morgan argued that organizations could be viewed metaphorically (for

177Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Volume TwoEdited by K. H. Silber, W. R. Foshay, R. Watkins, D. Leigh, J. L. Moseley and J. C. DessingerCopyright © 2010 by International Society for Performance Improvement. All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-0-470-52543-2

E1C07_1 10/14/2009 178

example, as a machine, an organism, or a brain) and that each metaphor

emphasized certain characteristics while minimizing others. In this spirit, Lee

Bolman and Terrence Deal posit in their seminal work Reframing Organizations

that multiple perspectives for thinking about organizations, stating that they can

be framed in terms of their symbols, politics, human resources, and structures.

The human resources approach may be the most intuitive to those in the field of

human performance technology (HPT) as it ‘‘emphasizes dealing with issues

by changingpeople (through training, rotation,promotion, ordismissal),’’ but the

structural perspective ‘‘argues for putting people in the right roles and relation-

ships’’ and therefore takes a dramatically different viewpoint on organizations

(p. 47). They also propose that structuralism is based on the assumptions that:

1. Organizations exist in order to achieve a particular set of goals;

2. Goals are reached most efficiently when a balance is struck between the

division of work, coordination of collective effort, and mitigation of

individual agendas and extraneous issues by reason;

3. An organization’s structures ought to fit its current circumstances; and

4. Deficiencies can be alleviated by the redesign these structures—that is,

‘‘restructuring’’—can alleviate problems that occur as a result of struc-

tural deficiencies (p. 47).

At this point, we’d like to point out that readers who are already well-versed

in the basis for the field in systems thinking and engineering ought to recognize

striking parallels between these assumptions and the definition of a system as an

ordered set of many components that are interrelated in their elements and their

attributes and whose structures are determined by function. Additional char-

acteristics include that a system is a complete whole unto itself, it is hierarchical

in nature, and it may be open or closed, natural or artificial. Furthermore, as Rita

Richey explains in her 1986 book on the topic of instructional design, a system is

constrained by the environment and stabilized through feedback.

Expanding Your Options

Human resource management—a strategic and coherent approachto the management of an organization’s most valued assets: thepeople working there who individually and collectively contribute tothe achievement of the objectives of the business.

Based on wikipedia.org entry (January 2009)

178 HANDBOOK OF IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN THE WORKPLACE

E1C07_1 10/14/2009 179

Taken together, these characteristics and the aforementioned structural

assumptions about organizations suggest some of the key decisions involved

in structuring an organization:

� Balancing the division and integration of work;

� How, where, and by whom decisions are made; and

� How information and power play a role in the organization.

While this chapter predominately discusses these decisions from the per-

spective of restructuring existing organizational components, the issues

addressed may also be useful during the design of a new organization. Addi-

tionally, restructuring is distinct from interventions such as mergers, outsourc-

ing, and budget cuts but application of the concepts and tools discussed here can

enhance their success. That said, organizational structuring is closely related to

budgetary and financial considerations within an organization. The relationship

between organizational structures and financial practices is worthy of mention

for the simple reason that most organizations measure financial results. By

extension, accounting practices are heavily institutionalized and they can have

an impact on structure, and vice versa.

WHAT WE KNOW FROM RESEARCH

On a very general level, organizational restructuring involves just two pro-

cesses: analysis and synthesis. Drawing heavily from the work of Henry

Mintzberg1 at McGill University, this section refines this generalization through


Outplacement services—efforts made by a downsizing company tohelp its redundant employees to help them re-orientate to the jobmarket. This is frequently achieved through practical andpsychological support either delivered through individual one-on-one sessions or in a group format. Common topics include careerguidance, career evaluation, resume writing and interviewpreparation, developing networks, job search skills, and targetingthe job market. Individuals may be offered other services such asthe use of an office and online tools.


ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 179

E1C07_1 10/14/2009 180

an explanation of structural components, types, and typologies of organiza-

tional structures, and closes with reasons why structural variations exist.

Structural Components

In his classic 1980 work synthesizing the research on the design of organizations,

‘‘Structure in 5’s,’’ Mintzberg suggested that there are five basic components

within an organization, the (1) operating core, (2) strategic apex, (3) middle line,

(4) technostructure, and (5) support staff. The parts are defined in Table 7.1.


Accounting—a system of recording, verifying, and reporting of thevalue of assets, liabilities, income, and expenses in the books ofaccount (ledger) to which debit and credit entries (recognizingtransactions) are chronologically posted to record changes in value.Such financial information is primarily used by leaders, managers,and other decision-makers to make resource allocation decisionsbetween and within companies, organizations, and public agencies.


Table 7.1 Definitions of Organizational Parts

Organizational

Part

Definition

Operating core Those employees who are directly responsible for the operations of

the organization (introducing its product or delivering the service it

provides)

Strategic apex Senior-level leaders who are responsible for the direction of the

organization

Middle line Those employees who are the authoritative liaisons between the

strategic apex and the operating core

Technostructure Those employees who do not fall within the strategic-operational

line, but provide feedback to it (for example, internal consultants,

analysts, accountants)

Support staff Employees who are auxiliary to the strategic-operational line but

whose work indirectly supports it (for example, benefits staff or

community relations)

Based on Mintzberg’s ‘‘Structure in 5’s’’ (1980)


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 181

While this classification schemamay seem somewhat classically oriented to a

hierarchical perspective of the organization, Mintzberg’s effort to distinguish

between the central strategic-operational line and two types of auxiliary staff

(technostructure and support staff) allows for the description of various types of

organizational structures. More subtly, it suggests that an organization’s struc-

ture is comprised of more than the names within the boxes on its organizational

chart, but also includes those individuals’ roles in basic operations and their

relationships with one another.

This is a similar notion as that put forth is by Geary Rummler and Alan Brache

in their 1995 book, Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on

the Organization Chart. In 2006, Rummler proposed the anatomy of performance

(AOP) model, which basically establishes a map of the relationships between

the components within an organization, namely its individual employees, their

jobs, work processes, functions/roles, and their management. Figure 7.1 illus-

trates this relationshipmap (including the traditional role of the HPT practitioner

as a performance consultant that is external to the organization).

A relationship map such as this emphasizes both general organizational

components and the individual workers’ roles in the strategic-operational

line. This is especially clear in the center of the diagram, where the roles and

inter-relatedness of individual workers is illustrated within the organization’s

primary operational process. It is also evident as we look at the organization of

these individuals into divisions (as indicated by boxes around them) and the

reporting relationships (indicated by encompassing brackets) between them. An

additional strength of the AOP relationship map is that it emphasizes the

adaptability of an organization within the greater environment, including

political, economical, and cultural factors as well as available resources, cus-

tomers and competitors in its market, and its shareholders. This point relates to

the issue of variability within organizational structures, because structures are

formed as adaptations to these environmental factors and circumstances. The

next section will discuss some of the ways in which an organization’s structures

may vary and describes specific types of organizational structures.

Variation in Organizational Configurations

An organization’s structure exists as an adaptation to its specific circumstances.

This reality might invite the simple conclusion that no organizations exist in

exactly the same set of circumstances so there is no ideal structure for

organizations and therefore that typologies of organizational structure provide

little practical value. As an alternative position, we put forth that understanding

the types of organizational structures exist is useful for two reasons: (1) sincean

organization’sstructureisentailedbyitsenvironmentalcircumstances,theability

to identify a particular type of organizational structure allows one the ability to

understandtheoriginsofaperformanceproblemandthecircumstances that ledto

it; and (2) once the decision has been made to implement a restructuring


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 182

Gov

ernm

ent

Res

ourc

esA

ny B

usin

ess

Ear

ning

ssh

areh

olde

rva

lue

Sha

reho

lder

s

Mar

ket

Pro

duct

sor

ser

vice

s

Cus

tom

er o

rder

s,re

quire

men

ts, a

ndfe

edba

ck

Pro

duct

s

Cus

tom

ers

Man

agem

ent

Cap

ital m

arke

tC

apita

l

Labo

r m

arke

tH

uman

reso

urce

s

Per

form

ance

Con

sulta

nt

Mat

eria

l or

equi

pmen

t

Tech

nolo

gy

Sup

plie

rs

Res

earc

hla

bora

torie

s

Eco

mom

y

Bus

ines

s E

nviro

nmen

t

Cul

ture

Com

petit

ion

Figure

7.1

Organ

izational

Componen

tsas

IllustratedThrough

Rummler’sAnatomyofPerform

ance

Model.

Source:

G.Rummler.

(2006).

‘‘TheAnatomyofPerform

ance.’’In

J.Pershing(Ed.),TheHandbookof

HumanPerform

ance

Technology

E1C07_1 10/14/2009 183

intervention, typologies aid in identifying critical structures that must be devel-

opedinordertosupportthecurrentcircumstancesandadapttocircumstancesthat

are likely to be the case in the future. Therefore, the next section reviews several

organizational structure typologies.

Organic vs. Mechanistic. The most simplistic classification of organizational

structures parallels the mechanistic and organic metaphors of organizations.

This schema characterizes an organization’s structure mostly based on com-

plexity, formalization, and degree of centralization for decision making. The

mechanistic and organic paradigms fall on opposite ends of the same spectrum

(see Figure 7.2).

Differentiation Characterizations. A key consideration in the design of an

organization’s structures is how work is distributed across the organization and

howworkers’ roles are distinguished from one another. There are basically four

ways to divide work within an organization: by function, division, matrix, or

network.

Functional structures group similar tasks together and each unit performs a

different type of work. Since each unit is based on a unique body of knowledge

and skills, functional structures lead to increased specialization of worker

expertise. Figure 7.3 presents a simplified example of a functionally structured

auto dealership where employees are organized into sales, service, marketing,

and finance departments. While work may flow across these areas, it is

primarily differentiated by employees’ function within the organization.

In divisional structures, units may overlap in the types of work performed,

but are hierarchically organized by product, customer, or region. While it might

include characteristics of functional organization, it allows for the differentia-

tion and tailoring of work based on characteristics relevant to the primary

organizer. For example, an industrial organization might divide its core opera-

tions geographically by region, as shown in Figure 7.4. While it demonstrates

Complexity

Centralization

Formalization

Organicorganizational

structure

Mechanisticorganizational

structure

Figure 7.2 Features of Organic and Mechanistic Organizational Structures.


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 184

only one part of an organization, Figure 7.4 shows that divisional structures are

formalized and complex (the figure would be even larger if the entire organiza-

tion were structured into divisions and mapped for our purposes). Additionally,

specific functions may be duplicated in several divisions (as illustrated in

redundant assembly, quality assurance, and shipping divisions).

In matrix structures, work is simultaneously organized by divisions and

functions, thus it is a hybrid of the previous two structures. Matrix structures

are process-oriented as work is distributed to cross-functional work groups.

Figure 7.5 demonstrates a matrix structure for a health plan process for

delivering physician performance reports.

Those employees who perform particular tasks and activities within this

process are members of different functional units and simultaneously respon-

sible to the work group itself.

According to Bruce Friesen’s 2005 article for Consulting to Management

journal, understanding of network structures is still emerging; an indication of

this is that they are referred to in the literature in a variety of ways, including

lattice, cluster, and informal structures. The themes that underlie all of these

labels are that work and decision making are highly disaggregated and decen-

tralized, information flows both through the chain of command and via informal

network channels, and process differentiation plays an even larger role than in

matrix networks. This final point is most evident in that work groups or teams

are the primary organizer for work and this work is managed by a project

champion instead of a traditional manager. A good example of a network

structure is a virtual team that is widely dispersed geographically. The team is

likely to be responsible to a project champion, they communicate freely with

one another perhaps via informal channels such as email, instant messaging, or

through collaborative document sharing. While work is somewhat oriented to

process, it primarily leverages partnerships and alliances between members.

Network structures are decentralized, or with many existing networks, they are

what Bolman and Deal refer to as ‘‘multicentric’’ (p. 59).

General ManagerCEO

Sales Service Marketing Finance

Figure 7.3 Functional Structure of an Auto Dealership.


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 185

CO

O

Wes

t Reg

ion

Sal

es Ass

embl

yD

ivis

ion

Ass

embl

yD

ivis

ion

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ceD

ivis

ion

Qua

lity

Ass

uran

ceD

ivis

ion

Shi

ppin

gD

ivis

ion

Shi

ppin

gD

ivis

ion

Mar

ketin

gM

anuf

actu

ring

Man

ufac

turin

gS

ales

Mar

ketin

g

Eas

t Reg

ion

Figure

7.4

Divisional

Structure

inCore

Operations(byGeo

grap

hy).

E1C07_1 10/14/2009 186

Coordination Mechanisms. An equally important issue as differentiation in-

volves how work will be integrated. Mintzberg (1980) said this coordination is

achieved through mechanisms of supervision, standardization of work pro-

cesses, outputs, and skills as well asmutual adjustment (self-regulation of work

through informal communication with others). Through different degrees of

emphasis on these mechanisms, organizational components exert force upon

each other, resulting in varied structural configurations. For example, the

structural apex tends to focus on the centralization of decision-making by

emphasizing supervision as a mechanism for coordinating work. In this simple

structure configuration, authority resides with only a small handful of leaders

who oversee all of the operations. Another structure is derived in situations

where those in the technostructure (consultants, accountants, analysts) push

for standardization resulting in a machine bureaucracy, where the operational

line is highly differentiated from other staff and those in the technostructure

hold a great deal of informal authority. In a professional bureaucracy, the

operational core resists authority of managers and technostructure staff (often

through professionalization), and decisions are decentralized vertically and

horizontally within the organization. In a limited form of decentralization, the

middle managers derive power from the strategic apex and exert this authority

over limited domains, resulting in a divisional structure. In the final type

organizational structure suggested by Mintzberg, an adhocracy, support staff

are able to self-regulate their work and communicate among themselves due to

selective decentralization of authority.

Load currentclaims data

Develop currentlist of

contractedphysicians

Prepare for andmail reports to

physiciansPrint reports

Develop databases relating claims withmembers and physicians

Perform qualitychecks ondatabases

PhysicianRelations

InformationTechnology

DiseaseManagement

Preventive CareManagement

QualityAssurance

Figure 7.5 Matrix Structure Illustrating a Physician Performance Report Process.


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 187

Factors That Affect Organizational Structure

Bolman and Deal (2008) observed several relationships between organizational

structures and existing circumstances:

1. As organizations grow larger and older, they become increasingly com-

plex and formal.

2. The complexity of organizational structures parallel the complexity of

its ‘‘core processes’’ (e.g. the structures of a university are more compli-

cated than those of a fast food chain because teaching is a more complex

process than food preparation).

3. Uncertain or turbulent environments require structures that are increas-

ingly complex and flexible.

4. Both explicit and implicit strategies influence organizational structure.

5. Information technology decreases the levels of and centralization of

authority structures while increasing their flexibility.

6. The changing characteristics of the workforce create new expectations

(e.g. an increasingly professionalized workforce desires independence

and autonomy) (pp. 62–68).

Similar themes run through much of the organizational structuring research,

leading to the conclusion that effective organizations are well-suited to their

circumstances. More particularly, reports Mintzberg in 1980, their structures are

congruent with contingency factors such as age and size of the organization,

technology systems, the nature of the environment, and power. Table 7.2

summarizes what structural effects can be expected in light of these factors.

WHEN TO APPLY

In a general way, the selection of a restructuring intervention is appropriatewhen

the existing structure is outmoded to the circumstances (as may be indicated by

the existenceof a performance problem) andwhen it appears that these structures


Cost reductions—any of numerous activities focused on reducingthe costs of raw materials, supplies, energy, labor, productionprocesses, distribution, and other components of a business.



E1C07_1 10/14/2009 188

Table 7.2 Factors and Their Effects on Organizational Structures.

Factor Structural effects

"organizational age " formalization of behavior

"organizational size " formalization of behavior

" size of an average unit

" elaborate structures" specialization of tasks

" differentiation of units

" development of the administrative components of

what Mintzberg callsmiddle line and technostructure

"regulation of technology

systems

"formalized work by those who use the technology

systems

"bureaucracy in the operational line

"sophistication of

technology systems

"number of support staff

"professionalization of the support staff

# centralization of technical decisions

" usage of techniques for liaison across the

organization

" automation of work by

technology systems

" organic and adaptable structures

" change in the environment " organic and adaptable structures

" complexity in the

environment

# centralization

" hostility in the environment " centralization (if only temporarily)

" disparities in the

competitive environment

" differentiation between select structures

"market diversification " differentiation by market base for grouping at an

organization’s upper levels

" externality of control " centralization" formalization

" desire for power by CEO " centralization" popularity of a particular

structure

"usage of that particular structure (even when

inappropriate)� " indicates an increase, and # indicates a decrease.

Based on H. Mintzberg (1980). ‘‘Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the Research on Organizational Design.’’

Management Science 26(3), 327–328.


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 189

are barriers to overcoming the performance problem. Michael Hammer and

Steven Stanton argue in their 1995 article for Government Executive that it is

important to distinguish restructuring from reengineering—which involves radi-

cal effort to redesign organizational processes on a large scale. While re-

engineering saw a great deal of growth during the mid-1990s, even its early

proponents acknowledge that there are substantial challenges for their imple-

mentation and success (Champy in Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 91). Moreover, there

is growing evidence that large-scale restructuring efforts that are executed in

response to performance problems may fall short of expected results (see, for

example, Ronald Burke’s 2001article ‘‘Hospital Restructuring and Downsizing’’).

As such, we advocate restructuring asmore of a changemanagement strategy

to support the achievement of a desired change. This sort of restructuring

approach may be appropriate when an organization has tried a technique to

respond to a specific performance problem, but the intervention is failing or its

results were short-lived. This sort of supportive restructuring is useful when,

upon further examination, structures exist that preclude the intervention from

achieving the desired results. Examples of this situation might involve an

organization that:

� Reorganizes to a work group or team-based structure but continues to

conduct performance evaluations at an individual level;

� Initiates cross-training, but still has its compensation systems based on

individual job classifications;

� Advocates lean thinking but still has highly complex policies and pro-

cedures; and

� Executes training and development programs but never reviews the

systems they have in place that punish the behaviors they target.

Alternatively, supportive restructuring may involve making incremental

modifications to rules, policies, procedures, and systems that establish how

organizations measure success. For example, if an organization implemented a

measurement strategy involving evaluation of financial indicators by product

line, but budgets and goals were organized by another component (for example,

department, sales division, or customer groups), then that organization might

want to examine how its structural components could be better aligned with the

product lines.

STRENGTHS AND CRITICISMS

Strengths

� Organizational restructuring is derived from a dramatically different

orientation than human resource–oriented interventions alone. Rather


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 190

than focusing on changing people, Bolman and Deal point out, it targets

their roles and responsibilities within the organization. Since it is framed

from an alternative viewpoint, it may be especially well-suited to situa-

tions in which other perspectives and traditional HPT approaches have

failed.

� A key issue in restructuring is the fit of the organization’s structure to its

purpose in its environment and the alignment of its internal components

with this organizational goal. An extension of this logic is that, as people

and their performance are synergized, value-subtracted work decreases2

and the likelihood of the achievement of the organizational goals is

increased.

Criticisms

� As a counterpoint to the first strength listed above, organizational

restructuring changes roles and responsibilities, but not the people who

function in them. ‘‘Pure’’ restructuring efforts that ignore the human

elements of work—including structural effects on motivation—may face

skepticism and resistance from the individuals that make up those new

structures.

� Restructuring represents a dramatic change for the organization, and the

interrelated and complex nature of organizational processes may make it

difficult to execute large-scale structural change to support performance

management process, payroll details, reporting structures in communi-

cation, and personnel processes. Moreover, the unintended consequences

of such large-scale change may be detrimental to the organization.

� It is essential that the intervention is based on a sound and thorough

analysis of the previous, current, and desired states. While this is true of

many interventions, it is especially true of restructuring because orga-

nizational structures are contingent on a variety of contextual factors. To

the extent that the rigor of the analysis may be outside the control of an

external consultant, additional front-end work may be required.

RECOMMENDED DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, ANDIMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

The following six-step model is recommended.

1. Ensure that the strategic plan is aligned with the organization’s societal

purpose. The organization’s high-level goals (as well as methods for

measuring their attainment) ought to line up with this purpose. If such a


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 191

strategic plan does not already exist, refer to the first section of this

handbook for considerations in establishing one. Because restructuring

is useful when current structures do not fit with the present circum-

stances, pay special attention to orienting organizational strategy

toward the future.

2. Fully analyze the current organizational structure by collecting data that

allows you to answer the following questions:

� What is/are the core operation(s) of the organization?

� Who performs the work that contributes to this operation?

� Who provides oversight or coordinates the operational workers?

� For those that provide oversight, fromwhom do they receive direction?

� Which processes, work outputs, and skills are standardized?

� Towhat extent are theseprocesses,workoutputs, andskills standardized?

� Where, by whom, and in what ways are decisions made?

� How does information flow throughout the organization?

� What is the nature of the organization’s environment?

3. Based on the answers to these questions, develop a graphical represen-

tation of the structures. This chapter includes Rummler’s Anatomy of

Performance model as an example of this process, although other

approaches may be more suitable to your needs.

4. Use this relationship map to isolate structures that impede the achieve-

ment of results. Keep in mind that structures can affect results at multi-

ple levels in the organization, including lower-level results that are

associated with other interventions in place in the organization.

5. When redesigning or modifying these structures, consider how these

structures:

� Fit with circumstantial factors such as age, size, technology systems,

the nature of the environment, and issues of power (refer to Table 7.2

for a summary of how these factors relate to structure)

� Ought to be coordinated through supervision, standardization of work

processes, outputs, and skills, or self-regulation. Mintzberg (1980)

offers more specific mechanisms for affecting differentiation and

integration, including: (1) specialization of jobs, (2) formalization of

behavior, (3) standardization of skills and knowledge through training,

(4) grouping work units, (5) changing the span of control (or size) of

work units, (6) planning and measurement systems, (7) communica-

tion devices, and (8) centralization of decision-making processes

(pp. 325–326)


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 192

� May have unintended consequences on employee motivation and

behavior

6. Prior to restructuring the organization, identify key messages that ought

to be communicated to employees at all levels of the organization.

These steps are specifically relevant to a restructuring intervention, but

their success can be aided by the generic processes of assessment, analysis,

design, development, implementation, and evaluation that are inherent in

HPT. In regard to evaluation, plan a strategy that both measures results and

monitors progress toward them. This will allow the organization the flexibility

to make small adjustments to its structure if desired results aren’t immediately

achieved.

When applied, this six-step process can lead to organizational structures that

support organizational performance. As an example, it was used recently in

consultation with a chemical company that had been using enterprise resource

planning (ERP) and began integrating amaintenance process (MP)module from

a highly recognized consulting firm. Historically, each unit managed its own

maintenance and operational budget. This meant that structuring maintenance

decisions at the company level (rather than the unit level) represented a

fundamental structural change for the organization. Unfortunately, when the

MPmodule was initially implemented, the company did not attend tomodifying

additional structures that related to the maintenance process, and the existing

structure focusing on roles and process became dysfunctional, as evidenced by

(1) delayed maintenance; (2) errors that resulted from faulty equipment; (3)

increased operational complaints; (4) competition and distrust between the

maintenance and operations functions; (5) failed attempts at accountability for

utilizing the process and ostracizing of those who performed the process’ gate-

keeping function; and (6) inconsistency between performance incentives and

expectations.

The consultant analyzed approximately eighteen months’ worth of data,

which led to a decision to recommend incremental changes to the structure of

the company. The recommendations that resulted from the six-step process

included:

� Delivering a message to the organization on how well the new mainte-

nance process was achieving the anticipated results and the value that the

people provided in following the new maintenance principles.

� Establishing a joint maintenance and operations taskforce to address all of

the issues that people had identified, while not reducing the value

principles of the process.

� Changing the reporting structure of the gatekeepers to the operations

managers with a matrix reporting relationship to the operations director.


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 193

� Changing the performance metrics of the operations managers to be

responsible for the entire operations budget, both operations and

maintenance.

� Changing the performance metrics of the gatekeepers to be responsible for

the entire organization budget and the unit-specific budgets.

� Establishing a continuous improvement maintenance and operations

discussion monthly to foster dialogue between the entities.

� Establishing operational discussions between operations supervisors and

gatekeepers to foster open communication about issues and education

about decision making parameters.

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

The success of an effort to structure a new organization or restructure a

failing one is dependent upon several key factors. The most important of

these is that a set of clear organizational goals exists so that structures may

be aligned with them. Moreover, if organizations do exist as a function of

what they deliver to society, then it is arguable that these aims ought to also

be socially important.

Once that relationship is established, then the next critical aspect of organi-

zational structuring involves having a systemic perspective. This involves

consideration of how each structural component affects other areas—both

during the analysis of existing structures and in the synthesis of new structures.

In regard to these new structures, they must reflect an alignment with the

current goals, environment, and capabilities, but must also be designed for

flexibility and dynamic change that will continue in the future.

SUMMARYOrganizations fulfill a purpose in society, and the ways in which each is

structured must be balanced with the circumstances of its existence and aligned

to its purpose. The concepts and methods for restructuring organizations

discussed here represent a philosophical alternative to human resource orien-

tations to organizational performance improvement and as a supportive mea-

sure for managing change that develops out of other interventions. This chapter

included:

� A review of seminal literature framing the structural perspective,

structural analysis, types of organizational structures, and reasons for

structural variation;


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 194

� General discussion of situations when examination of organizational

structures is warranted and cursory analysis of strengths and criticisms of

these efforts;

� A six-step process for the design, development, and implementation of

restructuring interventions;

� A mini-case study of the applications of this process in practice; and

� A few factors that are critical to successfully restructuring.

Notes

1. Those familiar with Michael Hammer’s advocacy of reengineering in the 1990s may

be surprised that his work is not included in this review of the literature. But since

reengineering involves a far more radical approach that is targeted at changing

business processes rather than structures (Hammer & Stanton, 1995), his work is

not heavily relied upon within this chapter.

2. For additional discussion of how performance and interventions can subtract value

from an organization, refer to Dale Brethower and Karolyn Smalley’s Performance-

Based Instruction: Linking Training to Business Results from 1998.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership (4th ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burke, R. J. (2001). Hospital restructuring and downsizing: Taking stock: A symposium,

part 1. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 23(4), 381–387.

Friesen, G. B. (2005). Organization design for the 21st century. Consulting to

Management, 16(3), 32–51.

Hammer, M., & Stanton, S. A. (1995). The reengineering revolution. Government

Executive, 27(9), 2A. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global

database. (Document ID: 7719968).

Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organizational

design. Management Science, 26(3), 322. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from ABI/

INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 618221111).

Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization: The executive edition. San Francisco and

Thousand Oaks, CA: Berrett-Koehler and Sage.

Richey, R. C. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design.

London: Kogan Page.

Rummler, G. (2006). The anatomy of performance. In J. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of

human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 986–1007). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. B. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the

white space on the organization chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


E1C07_1 10/14/2009 195

Recommended Readings

Bobic, M. P., & Davis, W. E. A kind word for theory X: Or why so many newfangled

management techniques quickly fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 13(3), pp. 239–264.

Brickley, J., Smith, C., Zimmerman, J., & Willett, J. (2003). Designing organizations to

create value: From strategy to structure. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Galbraith, J. (2002). Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure,

and process. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Galbraith, J., Downey, D., & Kates, A. (2002). How networks undergird the lateral

capability of an organization: Where the work gets done. Journal of Organizational

Excellence, 21(2), 67–78.

Hammer, M. (1997). Beyond reengineering: How the process-centered organization is

changing our work and our lives. New York: HarperCollins.

Silvestro, R., &Westley, C. (2002). Challenging the paradigm of the process enterprise: A

case-study analysis of BPR implementation. Omega, 30(3), 215–225.

Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. J. (1995). Strategic management: Concepts and cases

(6th ed.) Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D. Irwin.


Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1-3 (ISPI/Handbook of Improving...

Documents

Transcript of Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1-3 (ISPI/Handbook of Improving...