Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL
Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL
Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
A few months ago, the Klaipeda County administration was not able to send the Chief Doctor in the<br />
area to a unique training course, which he very much needed - because in order to do so they had<br />
to announce an open tender first. But there was only one such course, <strong>and</strong> the tender, in<br />
accordance with regulations, could not happen without competitors. Participation in the training<br />
would cost about $150. But the national legislation pertaining to the county government required<br />
tenders over about $50. Insurmountable! Even <strong>for</strong> an organization that costs millions just to keep<br />
itself alive. The more expensive the bureaucratic machine is – the more difficult <strong>and</strong> expensive is<br />
to make even very small decisions. So, where to get resources <strong>for</strong> carrying out needed functions?<br />
On the other h<strong>and</strong>, when bureaucratic machinery becomes big enough to pay much attention to<br />
internal homeostasis, resolving internal relations problems, <strong>and</strong> maintaining internal needs, then it<br />
does not need any external mission or function to keep itself busy <strong>and</strong> utilize all available<br />
resources. One of the striking conclusions of management audits per<strong>for</strong>med by the author’s<br />
colleagues in some regional administrations in Ukraine, also in a large company in Russia, was<br />
that officers used to spend more than 50 percent of their time (in one case – even 80%) resolving<br />
issues related only to their internal affairs – <strong>and</strong> not related to serving customers or manufacturing<br />
products.<br />
However, we shall never <strong>for</strong>get that universally ‘right’ structures do not exist. Bureaucratic<br />
structures may also be suitable <strong>and</strong> effective. Any kind of structure may be an excellent solution <strong>for</strong><br />
certain corresponding conditions. Nevertheless, the general trend obviously pushes organizations<br />
to be more flexible <strong>and</strong> have a more dispersed constitution. Existing structures, or more correctly,<br />
organizations, which posses certain structures, naturally resist; it follows the law of nature – <strong>for</strong><br />
them to preserve themselves as they are <strong>and</strong> to replicate existing structures.<br />
Richard Norman gives a good example of such ‘natural’ behaviour: ‘In the public service sector<br />
much of the same effects were strived <strong>for</strong> by ‘privatization’ <strong>and</strong> outsourcing contracts, although<br />
much of what was privatized or outsourced was specified <strong>and</strong> regulated in such detail that<br />
desirable reconfiguration was hindered rather than promoted. (Norman, 2001)<br />
In spite of these natural obstacles, the process continues. New flexible structural solutions are<br />
coming to life in the <strong>for</strong>m of task <strong>for</strong>ces, ad hoc teams, loosely-coupled networks, etc. And people<br />
in organizations should learn how to cope with these new structures. It is not easy, because <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
parts of the structure are less significant, much less is specified through written instructions, much<br />
more is to the discretion of individuals. That requires different individuals – not like parts in a<br />
machine, but like self-organizing cells in living organisms.<br />
49