I’ve heard, and used, this term many times in my career. However, after our readings, particularly chapter three of Morgan’s Images of Organization, I have a different take on what this term means and how it can be applied to my current organization.
Recently, there was some buzz about corporations being people. Now, I do not subscribe to this theory in the literal sense. Corporations are not breathing, feeling, sentinent beings. Yet, they do have needs and possess a life cycle. As technology advances, the evolution of organizations must advance as well. “Under the influence of the machine metaphor, organization theory was locked into a form of engineering preoccupied with relations between goals, structures and efficiency.” (Morgan, G. 1998, p. 36). Today, these basic elements for survival are still valid, yet, there are other attributes and qualities that an organization has to develop in order to survive. I’m likening this this evolutionary process to that of a human evolutionary process. Would Cro-Magnon man have been able to survive with the simple tools and basic survival instincts in today’s society? No, he would’ve been “eaten alive,” so to speak, or put in a research lab for others to study ways on how not to be progressive. The same can be said for corporations and organizations.
I work in the e-commerce industry. My company, Group Commerce represents many different online publishers. We act as a lifeline to these publishers by powering the technology (the blood that keeps their hearts pumping). We also provide an online sales tool (the food that sustains and nourishes them). Integrating the needs of our publisher-clients, Group Commerce and the individuals who make up these entities is essential for all to thrive.
I have been with Group Commerce almost since its inception. Although, it is still a very young organism, I have watched it evolve in order to stay healthy in a “dog eat dog” industry. So far, we seem to be the leader of the pack. This is due to many factors, but one of the most important is that early on, GC empowered its people. Morgan (1998) has noted how giving employees meaningful jobs, autonomy and recognition made employees feel more useful. Early on, Group Commerce did an excellent job of combining the human and mechanical needs of Self-actualizing, Ego, Social, Security and Psychological (Morgan, 1998).
Rapid growth can perhaps, however, create a kind of mutant. In the beginning, all employees were encouraged to participate in decisions that not only affected the company but also affected them as individuals and team. We adopted a shared leadership methodology (Worley & Lawler, 2006). This shared leadership kept employees motivated and encouraged (Worley & Lawler, 2006). By giving all ranks an equal share of the metaphorical pie, they were satisfied, happy and growing. However, as I stated in my last post, things have evolved to a more hierarchal structure. Employees are hungry for that food of encouragement, empowerment and diplomacy.
I see some elements of Galbraith’s Star Model in my organization. The strategy, structure, process, rewards and people (Galbraith, 2011) is in place. However an element of nourishment is missing. An organization is a social system (Morgan, 1998). “Organizations, like organisms are “open” to their environment and must achieve and appropriate relation with that environment if they are to survive.” (Morgan, 1998).
Although Group Commerce is thriving and head and shoulders above its competition, it cannot continue to deplete the ecosystem that fattened it up. Each species that contributed to its success has an important role in its survival. I look at the health of organizations as I do nature. We cannot destroy other species because we can or because we deem them useless. Each organism has a place and a reason for being. If the powerful, top of the food chain eliminates or starves out other “less powerful” beings, they will soon realize they are also starving.
References:
Galbraith, J.R., (2011). The Star Model (pp. 1-6).Morgan, G. (1998). Images of Organizations the Executive Edition. San Francisco, CA: Barret –
Kohler. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Worley, C.G., & Lawler, E.E., (2006). Designing Organizatins that are Built to Change. MIT
Management Review, 48(1), 19-23.
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your story! The correlations between Group Commerce and the fictional organization in the multimedia regarding the Star model this week are uncanny. I have also worked with an organization from its inception (though not my current one) and can relate to the feeling of loss that comes with the company’s growth. I felt as if I was mourning a break up – because the relationship that once existed between the organization and the employees had so drastically changed.
The loss of shared leadership seems to be a huge component of some underlying dissatisfaction. Do you think it is the hierarchy itself that is the source of frustration or lack of communication throughout the organization? As an organization grows, I would imagine the processes (both vertical and horizontal) become an area that needs additional focus. Groups that were used to informal decision making must now become accustomed to structured meetings, routing significant decisions to the right person, etc. You must essentially re-learn the organization as it grows in this way because it can change so quickly in a very short span of time.
Again, thanks for sharing!
Brenda, thank you so much for your reply and your insight. It is like a breakup! I hadn't thought of it that way. It really is a mourning process.
DeleteI think it's lack of communication that is the real pain point. There are incredible, smart, motivated people at every level. When in smaller groups or individually, it's clear that they are supportive and the lines of communication are open. However, when process is applied to the hierarchal structure, which is vertical, the communication seems to shut down or become muddled.
You are absolutely correct in saying that as the company grows more focus is needed. It's important to mention that 90% of the company are remote employees. That distance can make communication even more difficult and breed fear. What was once a small, yet spread out, team is now a huge group. Many of whom have never met each other. Of course, this means management must change it's structure and become more rigid.
These are growing pains for the organization and for it's employees. It's still an amazing organization with so much potential. I'm very interested to see how it continues to change. My thoughts are that it will level off and an element comfort will return.
Thanks again, Brenda. I really enjoyed your response and the way you think. You helped open my mind!
Interesting post, Lisa. There are two distinct schools of thought in this week's readings: those who believe managers can change their organization and those who think the environment is in ultimate control. From your experiences, which camp are you in? When you say your company has evolved, do you think the managers were the agent of change in this evolution?
ReplyDeleteYou also talk about how hierarchy may be stifling your organization. The reading this week suggested that organizations in a stable environment tend to benefit the most from a rigid hierarchy. With this in mind, do you think your organization no longer fits the current environment? How would the readings suggest it change its design?
Thanks for the response, Courtney. These are very good questions.
ReplyDeleteI think management and environment are contingent upon each other. Ultimately, I think managers have control over the direction of an organization, as they create the current environment. However, other outside factors such as growth and competition may alter the environment and the needs of the organization, thereby, requiring a shift in management procedure which requires a more rigid hierarchy.
From my experience, I've seen the environment shift with changes in management and vice versa. For example, our original SVP of sales was a very engaging, personable man. He encouraged feedback and suggestions from all levels. As Group Commerce began to grow rapidly, he was let go. The reason given was he "took the organization as far as he could." His replacement introduced a much more rigid chain of command and although open communication seems to have suffered, the company is more profitable and efficient. So, it would appear that management and environment need to address the needs of one another in order for an organization to remain healthy. I do actually think that the organizational structure fits the current environment of Group Commerce. However, as I stated, I see some of the basic "needs" for the health of the environment missing, such as Self-actualization and Ego (Morgan, 1998). Yet, we are a young company who is learning, as most young things do, by trial and error.
I am still in support of open communication and do not think that eliminating feedback and input from employees is healthy for the organization or good for morale. I do however understand that organizational goals are the most important factor, and managers must obtain that goal by any means necessary. However, I do think the element of employee engagement can be integrated into this goal.
From the readings I would suggest Group Commerce adopt the Reciprocal Integration Pattern (Lorsh, 1975, pp.6-8). For example, since the business development department sets the expectations for the publisher-clients, and the sales team is responsible for bringing in revenue for these clients, a collaborative effort from both departments would allow the B.D. team to hear what the sales team can and cannot deliver and allow the sales team to understand the expectations and reasons for said expectations.
References:
Lorsch, J.W., (1975). Note on Organizational Design. Boston, MA: Havard Business
School Publishing
Morgan, G. (1998). Images of Organizations the Executive Edition. San Francisco, CA:
Barret–Kohler. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.