Organizational Development: A Manual for Managers and ... - FPDL

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