David Tinsley
Analysis of an article from popular press relating to
organizational design
Heffernan, M. (2012, February 6). Why flexible hours inspire
perfomance. Inc.com. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/margaret-heffernan/why-flexible-hours-inspire-achievement.html?nav=pop
I ran across an article on Inc.com that I found very
appropriate to our discussions and reading on organizational structure. The article is mostly an experience-based
story on how a manager uses a process with her employees that helps to foster an
information age structured organization (Applegate, 1995).
The manager tells the story of an experience she had with a
recent hire. The new hire asked what
time she was supposed to report to work each day. The manager’s response, much to the surprise
of the employee was, “I don’t care” (Inc.com, 2012). The manager went on to explain to the
employee that her approach was it did not matter the time she arrived, but that
everyone was expected to get their “work completed on schedule and on budget” (Inc.com,
2012). The manager related the fact that
she had never been “disappointed with the results of using this approach” (Inc.com,
2012) on her employees.
The article presents a good example of a manager being
allowed to manage her employees in the environment of an “information age
organization” (Applegate, 1995). One of
the primary design elements of an information age organization is, as Applegate
explained, “transforming an organization requires more than just
changing the structure” (1995). It is
through a process of giving employees the opportunity to “redefine the way they
work and the values that guide decision-making and action” (1995). It is the “harnessing of the energy of the
workforce” (1995) that not only gives an employee more “responsibilities”
(1995), but it also serves a part of a more motivating reward system. The company has created a greater “incentive”
(1995) for the employees by not making them punch the clock, so to speak. Their apparent reward is the flexibility with
their work schedule, as long as they complete their tasks on time (Applegate,
1995).
References
Applegate, L . (1995). Managing in an Information Age.
Harvard Business Publishing.
Heffernan, M. (2012,
February 6). Why flexible hours inspire performance. Inc.com. Retrieved from
http://www.inc.com/margaret-heffernan/why-flexible-hours-inspire-achievement.html?nav=pop
http://www.inc.com/margaret-heffernan/why-flexible-hours-inspire-achievement.html?nav=pop
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI found this fascinating. I'm a big supporter of autonomy and making employees accountable for themselves. Most higher-level employees know what they need to do to get the job done. It seems completely reasonable to allow an employee to follow this model.
Hi Lisa,
DeleteI found it interesting as well. I had to read it several times because what Heffernan was describing is the type of work environment I was lucky enough to have while working in broadcasting. We were given the freedom to work and perform. Our radio shows were our "own," with the exception of direction on music played. We were solely responsible for the content and execution of our shows, so it was sort of like a mini one-man organization during the four or five hours on the air. At the level I worked at, we were all seasoned professionals, and by our own actions and performance, we were allowed the autonomy to be creative. That helped to motivate us to succeed (ratings) and grow.
Thanks!
David,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the article; it resonated with me and experiences I've had working as a producer/broadcaster!
With certain job descriptions, yes, there can be almost complete freedom and autonomy for employees to get their work done.
And while Margaret Heffernan is speaking to her experiences in broadcast, but she there are rules and plans in place for her employees (Daft, 2007). In this case, the plan is a broadcast date/schedule for her employees(producers) to get the story developed and filed.
But on the other hand that type of freedom and creativity (within the station's/program's mission)is rare across the entire job market. And as the tasks got more complex for her (her Program Director/GM might want to develop a series on a number of community-based issues and need to see/hear regular updates before airing, for example), perhaps she would need to change her tactic and adjust employees' schedules and deadlines to account for that, or even create a team or task force to work on the project(Daft, 2007).
Heffernan's story is anectodal, but I still see (or am starting to see) organizational structure within nearly every job position and project.
REFERENCES
Daft, R. (2007) Fundamentals of Organizational Structure, “ Organization
Theory and Design. ( 9th Ed.), pp. 88-125
Hi Al,
DeleteThanks! I had the same feelings. When I was working in broadcasting, I was very lucky to have Program Directors that really got this concept of flexibility. We already worked strange hours as it was with remotes, appearances, community events and our regular production and air shifts. There was no such thing as a 40-hour work week. But having the flexibility to come in, get my work done and leave when possible, helped take some of the "pain" out of all the issues with scheduling. We were all professionals and knew what was expected, and we were trusted to do that.
As you point out this freedom IS quite rare in other organizations. And in many organizations, this type of flexibility would not work. But the managers in the radio business at the time I was working in the field had been in our shoes, so to speak. Their understanding of the environment from our perspective probably helped in a big way in shaping their management styles as they progressed.
David, what type of organizational structure do you think works best with Heffernan's attitude? Do you think flexible hours could work in any type of structure?
ReplyDeleteHi Courtney,
DeleteI believe the organizational structure that would best be suited for Heffernan's organization would most likely be a hybrid structure, with a functional structure at the top levels of the organization, and a horizontal structure within the levels below (Daft, 2007). Based on Heffernan's article, her broadcasting environment is most like rich with creative-driven talent. From personal experience, creative people have a need for flexibility to help drive the most effective use of their talents. Hard and heavily-structured schedules, rules, etc., can stifle creative or artistic potential. The horizontal structure would allow the company to meet the needs of "learning, innovation and overall flexibility, and foster the needed coordination" between employees (Daft, 2007).
Flexible hours would not work in any type of structure. Employees operating in a highly functional structure (Daft, 2007), i.e. a factory, depend on the stability of a functional structure (Daft, 2007) to carry out the various interrelated functions of the business. For example, a manufacturing environment is dependent on the schedule of a production line; therefore, employees would need to have a highly coordinated work schedule so that their piece of the process fits into the total process of the assembly line. Flexible hours in that structure would not be viable.
Daft, R. (2007). Fundamentals of organizational structure. Organization Theory and Design (9th ed.), pp. 88-125.
David, nice find! I know a few companies who use this approach well, but I really think it is a case-by-case basis. You are paying the individual, not the job. So, you'd really have to trust the employee to get his work accomplished. As I think about a couple of friends who have this "agreement," I can't help but be reminded of how they brag about not having to go in to work because they can work from home. When they work from home, they don't get up early and they dillydally for hours once they do. I think the absence of a work environment creates an odd form of contentment within oneself. Again, it is a case-by-case theory. I know it works, but it just doesn't work with everyone. I like how you included the rewards. Complete your tasks and receive more flexibility.
ReplyDeleteHi Thomas,
DeleteThanks! I see companies adopting this as well. And you are correct, it is on a case-by-case basis. I think the talent side of broadcasting is a good case in point. We were paid and rewarded for our own talent and motivation. When you get Arbitron ratings every month (which culminated into a quarterly audience measure, or "the book" as it was know in the field), there is high motivation to perform at the highest level. And while we were given guidance by our station managers, it was all on us to make our radio shows entertaining and engaging. Our show, our responsibility. And we were lucky to have programming managers that saw the need for flexibility to foster our creative needs.
But there are many companies that have this flexibility. I think of a friend of mine that works for a large company based in the Midwest. He is a regional manager for the southern "division" of the company. He works virtually with other members of his work-group, and his office is at home. He is where his customers are, and not in some physical, centralized office building. His managers trust him to do his job in a virtual setting. And technology has allowed more and more companies to operate in this way.
Thanks again!
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post. I think that more hierarchical structures tend to have less flexibility. I can see how Applegate (1995) would approve of this flexibility especially in the information age. This example seems to connect with the "learning model" which "required the development of a shared purpose (or direction) and a shared understanding of the individual actions needed to achieve that purpose" (Applegate, 1995 p. 12). In other words, if the employee buys into shared goals and outcomes then he/she will do their best to meet the goals whether it takes her 20 hours of 5 hours to get the job done. I am a big believer in this type of management since I am lucky to have a manager who uses similar approaches to keep me motivated and accountable.
Hi Adriana,
DeleteThanks so much! I think Heffernan's organization is a great example of an information age structured company. There was a definite shared purpose and it was apparently communicated very well throughout the organization. While they were not working in "silos," they were allowed the freedom and flexibility to work in a way that was probably motivating and rewarding to them personally. And as I've stated in some of my other responses, this environment relied heavily on creativity. Having the flexibility they had, in essence, helped foster a higher level of performance.
And what did this type of motivation cost the company? From what I can see, not a single dime. I think this is an example that shows creating new structures, including rewards systems and job satisfaction doesn't have to cost a company much of anything, except an investment in their people. And that can be accomplished with "changes that occur deep within an organization, with individuals and work teams redefining the WAY they work and the VALUES that guide decision-making and action" (Applegate, 1995 p. 9).
David,
ReplyDeleteNice article, which i quickly shared with my team. It is often hard to find managers who strutter tier organization in this way. It can really improve employee morale and productivity. I have seen it first hand when I worked in the Senate, we had a flexible schedule based on work load and needs. Since legislation would often go late into the veining due to debates or procedural processes, we would have the flexibility to come later, leave early, work from home, etc. It increase team morale and individual productivity all around. Now, if I can get my new organization to see the benefits of flexibility. Yet, like Adriana said and I agree that "more hierarchical structures tend to have less flexibility."
~LaVenia
I think flexible work hours and the message of "get your work done, but I don't care when or how you do it" is great for employee morale. In our entire accounting & finance department, the leader decided that not only would it be a come-and-go atmosphere, but that on Friday afternoons, you rotate with your direct teammates who gets to go home for the day after lunch! That, along with several other work/life balance initiatives and a department "fun committee" the leader put in place, have really made their employee satisfaction scores skyrocket the past few years.
ReplyDeleteThe only problem I see with this type of work atmosphere is people abusing the flexible time or work from home option. We are in the process of exploring a company-wide policy about working from home, but we can't quite get it off the ground.