Academic article: Locate, read and summarize an academic article that presents a related theory, case example, etc. Draw connections between the ideas in the article and those you read for class.
Lorsch, W. (1975) Note on Organizational Design. Harvard Educational Review, pp. 1-21
I’m obsessed with leaders. I always have been. When I was a child I used to sit in the pew at church and observe my pastor. His sermons were magnetic and every Sunday he would energize the brothers and sisters of our congregation with his charisma and rhetoric ability.
My analysis of leaders continued as an undergraduate. I was amazed at the ability of my teachers to mix formal academic training with anecdotal stories that connected theory to reality. My very best professors were able to effortlessly hold your attention week after week; while at the same time giving pupils clear direction on all assignments and readings. I used to think to myself, “What is it about the leadership techniques of these professors that allow them to galvanize a mass of people and give them clear message of expectation for the particular course?”
Leadership is of paramount importance when considering the fate of an organization in the business world. In this week’s readings each author touched on the importance of leadership in building and sustaining an effective organizational design. Worley &Lawley (2006) argued that shared leadership gives organizations the best chance of developing sustainable competitive advantages in the ever-changing environment of present-day industries. Galbraith (2002) suggests that an executive leader should be less of a decision maker, and more of a decision shaper, by molding a strong group of leaders that have clear objectives and open lines of communication. In Morgan’s (1998) analogical analysis, the managerial sub system is the key to an organization’s ability to adapt.
Due to my obsession with leaders and the visible executive superstars in today’s business world, I was explicably drawn to “the missing links” section of the Lorsch article. While speaking of leaders the author proclaims that “organization design must (also) be compatible with their experience and talents.” (Lorsch, 1975, p. 20) Sure, organization design is critical, but the executive leadership is the keystone that holds the whole organization together.
In “Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management”, Wastley & Mintzberg (1989) demonstrate that the behavior, style, and experience of a leader can greatly influence the strategic direction of an organization. In my view, it is the leader (of an organization) who gives life to a well-crafted organizational design. Consider the case of a visionary leader in the modern day business world: the late Steve Jobs. The organization design of Apple Inc. is well suited for the technological industry but it was Jobs’ “evangelical zeal to show people the future potential of the product” (Wastley & Mintzberg, 1989, p. 25) that galvanized a workforce and the American consumer. Apple Inc.’s culture and strategic direction was derived from the style and capabilities of its leader. As Jobs was “outstanding in his merging of foresight and imagination,” Apple was effective in creating innovative products that were before their time. (Wastley & Mintzberg, 1989, p. 25) The high performance in innovative technology was established and sustained at Apple Inc. because these design choices were consistent with the style of the appointed leader, Jobs. Apple is an example of the potential of organizational design realized because of alignment with an effective leader. It is this critical relationship that triggers a sustainable competitive advantage for an organization.
References
Galbraith., J.R.. (2002). Designing Organizations. pp.1-8 (Chapter 1)
Lorsch, W. (1975) Note on Organizational Design. Harvard Educational Review, pp. 1-21
Morgan, G. (1998) Images of Organizations: Executive Edition. pp. 35-68
Westley, F. & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management [Electronic Version]. Strategic Management Journal, 10. Retrieved February 5, 2012 from JSTOR.
Worley, C. & Lawler, E. (2006) Designing Organizations that are Built for Change, MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), pp. 18-23
Casey, nice to hear you are passionate about this subject. What are your thoughts on population ecology, a theory that was discussed in Morgan (1998)? Do you think that strong, visionary leadership has a place in this theory?
ReplyDeleteCourtney, The population ecology theory of Morgan (1998) is in agreement with the theories of the authors of our other readings; particularly Worley & Lawler (2006) and Galbraith (2002). According to Morgan's (1998) population ecology theory, the key to sustained organization success hinges on the abiliy of an organization to "acquire an adequate supply of the resources necessary to sustain existence" (p.57). Morgan (1998) also states that "the environment [is] the critical factor in determining which organizations succeed and which fail" (p.58). When I concentrated on the analogy of this theory I realized that in a constantly changing environment, an organism (or organizations) ability maintain a competitive advantage (or survive by obtaining enough recources) depends on their ability to change (or adapt) to an ever changing environment. These built-to-change (Worley & Lawler, 2006) organizations are best designed to sustain a competitive advantage in today's industries because unlike previous eras, the fast paced nature of today's industries are resulting in temporary advantages that are no longer sustainable over long periods of time (Galbraith, 2002).
DeleteI argue that strong, visionary leadership is the key to an organization's design; and since this organization design is critical to an organization's ability to change, leadership and population ecology are undeniably linked. Visionary leadership equips top executives with intangibles such as foresight (Wren, 2009). An ability to foresee environmental changes in order to form strategic long term plans for a company is key to an organization's survival in an ever changing environment.
Casey, good post. I know I'm going to receive flack from this, but I'm prepared haha. I didn't fully understand Jobs' impact on technology until he died. Posthumously, his branding of Apple finally set in. I incessantly read and watched everything about Jobs the week he passed away. I saw a tidal wave of support from his peers and fans. I finally understood him. He was, indeed, a leader. Yes, his creations were brilliant. However, I think the designing method of his products were more phenomenal. Heck, even the designer he hired to design the first edgy computer for Apple was just Knighted by the Queen of England.
ReplyDeleteI encourage you to watch this documentary about the Billion Dollar Hippy. You'll get a huge kick once you find out why he named his company Apple. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q-11cSNshc
Hi Casey,
ReplyDeleteI loved this post. I wrote my post this week on the importance of the people, and how without them you can't meet your organization's strategic goals or create short-term advantages.
But if we do not have solid leaders in management positions that can be the bridge between the CEOs and the low-level employees, how will those employees receive the message? Having personable, dedicated managers who possess the people skills and integrity to provide an example for an organization is something that often goes overlooked, and I'm so glad you made it a point to post about it this week. After reading it, I feel like our posts might be intertwined in a way. You need the people to carry out your objectives, but they also need a messenger to inspire them.
Great Stuff!