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.
But some survived. One can find now amusing specimens inherited from that time in some <strong>for</strong>mer<br />
state enterprises <strong>and</strong> local governments<br />
However, in many cases the reorganization of organizational processes by substituting multiproduct<br />
mono-functional subdivisions (which could only execute comm<strong>and</strong>s that somebody would<br />
give them) <strong>for</strong> mono-product multi-functional units (which were able to carry out whole the process<br />
of producing a certain product or service based on an external request, or internal client) were<br />
successful. It allowed a much more clear definition of responsibility, <strong>and</strong> much less cross-functional<br />
complaints <strong>and</strong> ‘justifications’. Very soon this new way of structuring was embraced by the writers<br />
of a new version of international st<strong>and</strong>ards - ISO9000 - that in the year 2000 fixed ‘management by<br />
processes’ among eight basic principles of management applicable in all types of organizations<br />
(see Chapter 2.3).<br />
However, the most important outcome of such reorganizations was the possibility of creating sel<strong>for</strong>ganizing<br />
units, or real teams within processes, which was previously very difficult to do when<br />
people were aggregated in subdivisions merely because they per<strong>for</strong>med similar functions, although<br />
<strong>for</strong> different products or services.<br />
A function may be per<strong>for</strong>med in correctly accordance with an order <strong>and</strong> instructions. Such orders<br />
or instruction could come from the controller or boss only. Line workers could not be responsible<br />
<strong>for</strong> the final results, since results depended on a combination of many functions. Everyone should<br />
be responsible to his boss. Small functional bosses were responsible to their higher level boss.<br />
Only the top boss could gauge per<strong>for</strong>mance <strong>and</strong> provide feedback.<br />
Those who work together in one process through its final result can measure their per<strong>for</strong>mance by<br />
real outcomes: perfectly or imperfectly manufactured articles, happy or unhappy clients. When<br />
per<strong>for</strong>ming all functions together, they do not need a boss to coordinate <strong>and</strong> evaluate their actions.<br />
Coordination <strong>and</strong> evaluation comes from other members of the team, <strong>and</strong> from clients. And it is<br />
great. A new modern term soon appeared – High-Per<strong>for</strong>ming Self-Managed Work Teams (Yeatts<br />
<strong>and</strong> Hyten, 1998). One more triumph of old truth.<br />
51