"Chapter 5 of OD"
Downsizing is a commonly used euphemism which refers to reducing the overall size and operating costs of a company, most directly through a reduction in the total number of employees. When the market is tight, downsizing is extremely common, as companies fight to survive in a hostile climate while competing with other companies in the same sector. For employees, downsizing can be very unnerving and upsetting. There are several reasons to engage in downsizing. The primary reason is to make the daily operations of a business more efficient. For example, a company may be able to replace assembly line employees with machines which will be quicker and less prone to error. In addition, downsizing increases profits by reducing the overall overhead of a business. In other instances, a company may decide to shut down an entire division; a car company, for example, might decide to stop making sedans altogether, thus cutting an entire department. In some cases, it becomes apparent that a business has too many employees. This may be because there has been a decline in demand for the company's services, or because a company is running more smoothly and efficiently than it once was. Many offices are heavily bloated with support staff and redundant departments, and these businesses may refer to downsizing as “trimming the fat.” Numerous terms accompany downsizing. Employees may be terminated, fired, laid off, made redundant, or released. A business may be optimized, rightsized, or experiencing a reduction in workforce. Some of these terms have different legal meanings depending on where one is in the world; a layoff, for example, may refer to a mass temporary release of employees who will brought back in once business picks up, while a redundant employee is one who is asked to leave permanently. Numerous consulting firms offer assistance with downsizing, often with the use of specialists who visit a business to evaluate it. Since profit is an important bottom line for companies, downsizing measures should be expected by employees, especially when they observe a troubled market or they are working for a struggling company. Reengineering 1. The radical redesign of business processes to cut waste; to improve cost, quality and service; and to maximize the profits of information technology generally by questioning how and why things are being done as they are. 2. The fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed. 5 Levels of Reengineering 1. Determining case for reengineering Segment type of business o Operation o Distribution o Service Case for action Business context Business problem Market place demands Diagnostics Costs of inaction Set clear vision (Vision Statement) “What a company need to become?” • Provide a yardstick for measuring the process of reengineering Set clear vision o Operation o Measurable objectives o reduce working process o determine the system for co-operation o employing Technology o focus customer segmental o One stop shop o Intelligent building o fast flow o change the financial statement system o Emphasize on Quality service innovation etc. Procedure of reengineering xi. Reengineering method Understanding process o people involve in reengineering o Leader o Process owner o Reengineering team o Steering committee o Reengineering czar xii. Reengineering process Giving the process name Creating a high level process map Choosing a process to reengineer Understanding and reengineering process o Use information technology o Reengineering technique Reengineering technique The role and understanding of senior management on reengineering is vital Do not attempt to reengineering when the CEO is nearly retire Do not fix a process but change it Do not make reengineering happen from bottom up Assign someone who really understand reengineering to lead the effect Do not allow existing corporate culture and management attitudes to prevent reengineering from setting started Try to make reengineering happen without making anybody unhappy Do not pool back when people resist making reengineering’s change. Design new process Several jobs are combined into one Workers make decisions and decision making becomes part of the work Need follow want Flexible Work is perform when it makes the most sense Reduce check and control Minimize the compromise Customer orient Combine both centralize and decentralize Employing information technology The change that can notified Process teams Multi-dimensional work empower from training to education Focus on result of performance measures and compensation shifted. Performance ability to productive coach flat organization Executive change from scorekeeper to leader Implementation Giving information to staff Performance appraisal by employing reengineering style Work system Continuous Learning BPR The analysis and design of workflows and processes within an organization. A business process is a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome. Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management. Business Process Reengineering is also known as Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Business Process Reengineering, although a close relative, seeks radical rather than merely continuous improvement. It escalates the efforts of JIT and TQM to make process orientation a strategic tool and a core competence of the organization. BPR concentrates on core business processes, and uses the specific techniques within the JIT and TQM ”toolboxes” as enablers, while broadening the process vision." In order to achieve the major improvements BPR is seeking for, the change of structural organizational variables, and other ways of managing and performing work is often considered as being insufficient. For being able to reap the achievable benefits fully, the use of information technology (IT) is conceived as a major contributing factor. While IT traditionally has been used for supporting the existing business functions, i.e. it was used for increasing organizational efficiency, it now plays a role as enabler of new organizational forms, and patterns of collaboration within and between organization.citation needed. BPR derives its existence from different disciplines, and four major areas can be identified as being subjected to change in BPR - organization, technology, strategy, and people - where a process view is used as common framework for considering these dimensions. The approach can be graphically depicted by a modification of "Leavitt’s diamond". Business strategy is the primary driver of BPR initiatives and the other dimensions are governed by strategy's encompassing role. The organization dimension reflects the structural elements of the company, such as hierarchical levels, the composition of organizational units, and the distribution of work between them. Technology is concerned with the use of computer systems and other forms of communication technology in the business. In BPR, information technology is generally considered as playing a role as enabler of new forms of organizing and collaborating, rather than supporting existing business functions. The people / human resources dimension deals with aspects such as education, training, motivation and reward systems. The concept of business processes - interrelated activities aiming at creating a value added output to a customer - is the basic underlying idea of BPR. These processes are characterized by a number of attributes: Process ownership, customer focus, value adding, and cross-functionality. The role of information technology Shared databases, making information available at many places Expert systems, allowing generalists to perform specialist tasks Telecommunication networks, allowing organizations to be centralized and decentralized at the same time Decision-support tools, allowing decision-making to be a part of everybody's job Wireless data communication and portable computers, allowing field personnel to work office independent Interactive videodisk, to get in immediate contact with potential buyers Automatic identification and tracking, allowing things to tell where they are, instead of requiring to be found High performance computing, allowing on-the-fly planning and revisioning In the mid 1990s, especially workflow management systems were considered as a significant contributor to improved process efficiency. Also ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) vendors, such as SAP, JD Edwards, Oracle, PeopleSoft, positioned their solutions as vehicles for business process redesign and improvement. Critique Reengineering assumes that the factor that limits an organization's performance is the ineffectiveness of its processes (which may or may not be true) and offers no means of validating that assumption. Reengineering assumes the need to start the process of performance improvement with a "clean slate," i.e. totally disregard the status quo. According to Eliyahu M. Goldratt (and his Theory of Constraints) reengineering does not provide an effective way to focus improvement efforts on the organization's constraint . It never changed management thinking, actually the largest causes of failure in an organization lack of management support for the initiative and thus poor acceptance in the organization. exaggerated expectations regarding the potential benefits from a BPR initiative and consequently failure to achieve the expected results. underestimation of the resistance to change within the organization. implementation of generic so-called best-practice processes that do not fit specific company needs. overtrust in technology solutions. performing BPR as a one-off project with limited strategy alignment and long-term perspective. poor project management. In organizational development (OD), work design is the application of Socio-Technical Systems principles and techniques to the humanization of work. The aims of work design to improved job satisfaction, to improved through-put, to improved quality and to reduced employee problems, e.g., grievances, absenteeism. Scientific Management Under scientific management people would be directed by reason and the problems of industrial unrest would be appropriately (i.e., scientifically) addressed. This philosophy is oriented toward the maximum gains possible to employees. Managers would guarantee that their subordinates would have access to the maximum of economic gains by means of rationalized processes. Organizations were portrayed as rationalized sites, designed and managed according to a rule of rationality imported from the world of technique Human Relations School The Human Relations Movement takes the view that businesses are social systems in which psychological and emotional factors have a significant influence on productivity. The common elements in human relations theory are the beliefs that Performance can be improved by good human relations Managers should consult employees in matters that affect staff. Leaders should be democratic rather than authoritarian. Employees are motivated by social and psychological rewards and are not just "economic animals" The work group plays an important part in influencing performance Socio-technical systems Socio-technical systems aims on jointly optimizing the operation of the social and technical system; the good or service would then be efficiently produced and psychological needs of the workers fulfilled. Embedded in Socio- technical Systems are motivational assumptions, such as intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Work Reform Work reform states about the workplace relation and the changes made which are more suitable to management and employee to encourage increased workforce participation. Work Design Work design has been researched and applied extensively in organizations. Recently, organizations have tended to combine work design with formal structure and supporting changes in goal setting, reward systems, work environment, and other performance management practices. These organizational factors can help structure and reinforce the kinds of work behaviors associated with specific work designs We will examine three approaches to work design. First, the engineering approach, which focuses on efficiency and simplification, and results in traditional job and work group designs. Second approach to work design rests on motivational theories and attempts to enrich the work experience. The third and most recent approach to work design derives from socio-technical systems methods, and seeks to optimize both the social and the technical aspects of work systems. The Engineering Approach: The oldest and most prevalent approach to designing work is based on engineering concepts and methods. It proposes that the most efficient work designs can be determined by clearly specifying the tasks to be performed, the work methods to be used, and the work flow among individuals. The engineering approach is based on the pioneering work of Frederick Taylor, the father of scientific management. He developed methods for analyzing and designing work and laid the foundation for the professional field of industrial engineering. The engineering approach scientifically analyzes workers' tasks to discover those procedures that produce the maximum output with the minimum input of energies and resources. This generally results in work designs with high levels of specialization and specification. Such designs have several benefits: they allow workers to learn tasks rapidly; they permit short work cycles so performance can take place with little or no mental effort; and they reduce costs because lower-skilled people can be hired and trained easily and paid relatively low wages. The engineering approach produces two kinds of work design: traditional jobs and traditional work groups. When the work can be completed by one person, such as with bank tellers and telephone operators, traditional jobs are created. These jobs tend to be simplified, with routine and repetitive tasks having clear specifications concerning time and motion. When the work requires coordination among people, such as on automobile assembly lines, traditional work groups are developed. They are composed of members performing relatively routine yet related tasks. The overall group task is typically broken into simpler, discrete parts (often called jobs). The tasks and work methods are specified for each part, and the parts are assigned to group members. Each member performs a routine and repetitive part of the group task. Members' separate task contributions are coordinated for overall task achievement through such external controls as schedules, rigid work flows, and supervisors. In the 1950s and 1960s, this method of work design was popularized by the assembly lines of American automobile manufacturers and was an important reason for the growth of American industry following World War II. The engineering approach to job design is less an OD intervention than a benchmark in history. Critics of the approach argue that the method ignores workers' social and psychological needs. They suggest that the rising educational level of the workforce and the substitution of automation for menial labor point to the need for more enriched forms of work in which people have greater discretion and are more challenged. Moreover, the current competitive climate requires a more committed and involved workforce able to make online decisions and to develop performance innovations. Work designed with the employee in mind is more humanly fulfilling and productive than that designed in traditional ways. However, it is important to recognize the strengths of the engineering approach. It remains an important work design intervention because its immediate cost savings and efficiency can be measured readily, and because it is well understood and easily implemented and managed. The Motivational Approach: The motivational approach to work design views the effectiveness of organizational activities primarily as a function of member needs and satisfaction, and seeks to improve employee performance and satisfaction by enriching jobs. The motivational method provides people with opportunities for autonomy, responsibility, closure (that is, doing a complete job), and performance feedback. Enriched jobs are popular in the United States at such companies as AT&T Universal Card, TRW, Dayton Hudson, and GTE. The motivational approach usually is associated with the research of Herzberg and of Hackman and Oldham. Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation proposed that certain attributes of work, such as opportunities for advancement and recognition, which he called motivators, help increase job satisfaction. Other attributes that Herzberg called hygiene factors, such as company policies, working conditions, pay, and supervision, do not produce satisfaction but rather prevent dissatisfaction—important contributors because only satisfied workers are motivated to produce. Successful job enrichment experiments at AT&T, Texas Instruments, and Imperial Chemical Industries helped to popularize job enrichment in the 1960s. Although Herzberg's motivational factors sound appealing, increasing doubt has been cast on the underlying theory. Motivation and hygiene factors are difficult to put into operation and measure, and that makes implementation and evaluation of the theory difficult. Furthermore, important worker characteristics that can affect whether people will respond favorably to job enrichment were not included in his theory. Finally, Herzberg's failure to involve employees in the job enrichment process itself does not suit most OD practitioners today. Consequently, a second, well-researched approach to job enrichment has been favored. It focuses on the attributes of the work itself and has resulted in a more scientifically acceptable theory of job enrichment than Herzberg's model. The research of Hackman and Oldham represents this more recent trend in job enrichment. Generally, time management refers to the development of processes and tools that increase efficiency and productivity. In business, time management has morphed into everything from methodologies such as Enterprise Resource Planning through consultant services such as Professional Organizers. When we think of time management, however, we tend to think of personal time management, loosely defined as managing our time to waste less time on doing the things we have to do so we have more time to do the things we want to do. Therefore, time management is often thought of or presented as a set of time management skills; the theory is that once we master the time management skills, we'll be more organized, efficient, and happier. Personal time management skills include: goal setting; planning; prioritizing; decision-making; delegating; scheduling. Many people find that time management tools, such as PIM software and PDAs, help them manage their time more effectively. For instance, a PDA can make it easier to schedule and keep track of events and appointments. Whether you use technological time management tools or plain old pen and paper, however, the first step in effective time management is analyzing how you currently spend your time and deciding how you want to change how you spend your time. Organizational learning is an area of knowledge within organizational theory that studies models and theories about the way an organization learns and adapts. In Organizational development (OD), learning is a characteristic of an adaptive organization, i.e., an organization that is able to sense changes in signals from its environment (both internal and external) and adapt accordingly. (see adaptive system). OD specialists endeavor to assist their clients to learn from experience and incorporate the learning as feedback into the planning process. The world seems to be changing faster and faster—from the technologies available to us, to the increasingly global scope of our interactions. Moreover, the problems facing us as a global community seem to be growing ever more complex and serious. How do we navigate such change and address these problems—not only in our work lives but also in our families, communities, and schools? We believe that organizations—groups of people who come together to accomplish a purpose—hold an important key to these questions. The field of organizational learning explores ways to design organizations so that they fulfill their function effectively, encourage people to reach their full potential, and, at the same time, help the world to be a better place. This field is rooted in a set of powerful principles, values, and disciplines. As Peter Senge wrote in his seminal book The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, an organization is learning when it can bring about the future it most desires. In the business community, learning is much more than just a way to create the future you want; in today's fast-paced, highly competitive work world, it may actually give your organization the edge it needs to survive—and thereby keep fulfilling its purpose. Organizational learning focused originally on the practice of five core disciplines, or capacities, of which systems thinking forms the cornerstone: • systems thinking • team learning • shared vision • mental models • personal mastery Let's take a closer look at these disciplines: Systems thinking is the art of seeing the world in terms of wholes, and the practice of focusing on the relationships among the parts of a system. By looking at reality through a systems thinking "lens," you can work with a system— rather than against it—to create enduring solutions to stubborn problems in every arena of your life. Practicing this discipline involves learning to recognize "signature" systemic behaviors all around you, and familiarizing yourself with some special terminology and some powerful tools unique to this field. Team learning is what happens when a group of people working on something together experiences that rare feeling of synergy and productiveness that happens when you're "in the groove." When a team is truly learning, the group as a whole becomes much more than just the sum of its parts. Practicing this discipline involves startlingly different kinds of conversations and a remarkable degree of honesty and mutual respect—all of which you can learn to do through familiarizing yourself with specific tools from this field. Shared vision emerges when everyone in an organization understands what the organization is trying to do, is genuinely committed to achieving that vision, and clearly grasps how his or her role in the organization can contribute to making the vision real. Practicing this discipline involves knowing how all the parts of the organization work together and being clear about how your own personal goals align with those of your organization. Mental models are the deep beliefs and assumptions we hold about how the world works. These models shape the decisions we make in life, the actions we take in response to events, and the ways in which we interpret others' behavior. Practicing this discipline involves surfacing and testing your deepest assumptions and beliefs, and helping others do the same. Again, there are specific tools available from this field that can help you with this practice. Personal mastery is the art of identifying what mark you want to leave on the world during your lifetime. That is, what's your unique purpose in life, and how do you want to go about fulfilling that purpose? Practicing this discipline involves some honest exploration of your own life experiences and desires and a willingness to take some risks. These five disciplines were originally outlined in 1990 in The Fifth Discipline and are core to many organizational learning efforts. We also believe there are many other disciplines that support and expand on the above five, including: Corporate culture is that intangible "something" that influences the environments in which we work every day. Technically, culture is an anthropological concept. But in the field of organizational learning, it refers to the policies, beliefs, activities, and rituals that determine an organization's "personality." A company's culture can support or hinder learning, encourage or stifle creativity, and so on. Fortunately, we can shape our organizations' culture through careful attention to how we do things and treat one another in the workplace. Corporate social responsibility addresses the question of how the business community fits into the larger social picture. Specifically, what responsibility do organizations have beyond just their own industries and arenas of competition? How do the actions of a particular organization or industry affect neighborhoods, the public sector, educational institutions, and families? It's tempting to compartmentalize these dimensions of human life, but of course they all influence each other. The discipline of corporate social responsibility focuses specifically on these interconnections and ways in which businesses can make the larger social world a better place for everyone. Dialogue focuses on new communication forms that strengthen a group's collective intelligence. This discipline offers several intriguing tools and techniques that may seem strange to you at first but that, with practice, will transform the way you talk with others, stimulating questions and insights that we often miss through traditional forms of conversation. Leadership in the field of organizational learning takes on a particular focus. Specifically, the discipline of leadership explores how managers—and leaders at every level in an organization—can unleash the full potential of each and every employee in the organization. Often this involves moving away from more traditional command- and-control management structures and toward more fluid, self-organizing leadership. This discipline is truly redefining the role of management for businesspeople everywhere. Sustainability, as a discipline, entails being thoughtful stewards of the natural resources on which our organizations depend. After all, if we use those resources without regard to their limits, we may deplete them permanently—and our organizations can't survive that. Sustainable management practices help us design organizations that respect and balance human needs with the natural cycles and limitations of our planet. Work/life balance is another area receiving increasing attention in the organizational learning field. More and more, people are seeking to design their work so that they have room for the other important dimensions of their lives— family, community, self-development, and so on. At the same time, the boundaries between work and home life have blurred in recent decades. The discipline of work/life balance seeks to explore the ramifications of these changes and address the question of how to set priorities and find meaning in both our work and non-work lives. Because everything really is structurally connected (systems thinking again!), an organization committed to true learning practices all of the above disciplines in some form, rather than tackling them in isolation. After all, they each reinforce one another, and when they come into alignment, the organization truly soars! And as we move into the 21st century, we'll no doubt see new disciplines emerge in this dynamic field.