Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It is test that managers and leaders often fail. Cluelessness is an every day fact of life, even for many
smart people. The problem is not insufficient intellectual wattage but a lack of understanding of
what they are up against and what remedies might work. If it was difficult to decipher clues and
read signs in the past, its even tougher now . The world is more turbulent and complex then it was
fifty ears ago. The stakes are higher and challenges often outpace leader’s cognitive capabilities.
Reframing requires an ability to understand and use multiple perspectives, to think about the
same thing in more then one way. We introduce four frames
1. Structural
2. Human resource
3. Political
4. Symbolic
Each is distinctive, each coherent and powerful in its own right. Together, they help capture a
comprehensive picture of what’s wrong and what might be done.
Psychic prisons prevent managers and leaders from seeing old problems in a new light or finding
more promising ways to work on perennial challenges. when they don’t know what to do , they do
more of what they know.
Theory base!
Managers, consultants, and policy makers draw, formally or otherwise , on a variety of theories in
an effort to change or improve organizations. Yet only in the past few decades have social scientist
devoted much time or attention to developing ideas about how organizations work. Each tradition
claims a scientific foundation. But theories easily become theologies, preaching a single, parochial
scripture. Competing gospels present limited versions of reality but expanded prophetic visions of
what the future holds, along with a definite set of strategies of reaching the promised land.
As a mental map, a frame is a set of ideas or assumptions u carry in your head. It helps u
understand and negotiate a particular territory.
Frames are windows on the world of leadership and management. “the world simply cant be made
sense of, facts cant be organized, unless u have a mental model to begin with. That theory does not
have to be the right one, because you can alter it along the way as information comes in. but u cant
begin to learn without some concept that gives you expectations or hypotheses.”(Hamden-turner)
Like maps, frames are both windows on a territory and tools for navigation. Every tool has
distinctive strengths and limitations. The right tool makes a job easier, but the wrong just gets in
the way.
Drawing from sociology and management science, the structural frame emphasizes goals,
specialized roles, and formal relationships. Structures commonly depicted by organization charts
are designed to fit an organizations environment and technology.
The human resource frame: based particularly on ideas from psychology sees an
organization as much like an extended family, made of individuals with needs, feelings, prejudices,
skills, and limitations. From a human resource perspective, the key challenge is to tailor
organizations to individuals, to find a way to people to get the job done while feeling good about ,
what they are doing.
Political frame: it sees organizations as arenas, contests, or jungles. Parochial interests compete
for power and scars resources. Conflict is rampant because of enduring differences in needs,
prospective, and life styles among competing individuals and groups. Problems arise when power is
concentrated in the wrong places or is so broadly disperse that nothing gets done.
Symbolic frame: the symbolic frame, drawing on social and cultural anthropology, treats
organizations as tribes, theatres or carnivals. it abandons assumptions of rationality more
prominent in other frames. It sees organizations as cultures, propelled more by rituals, ceremonies,
stories, heroes, and myths then by rules, policies, and managerial authority.
Each of the frames has its own image of reality. You may be drawn to one or two frames and
repelled by others. Some frames may seem clear and straight forward, while others seem puzzling.
but learning to apply all four deepens your appreciation and understanding of organizations.
Multi frame thinking requires elastic movement beyond narrow and mechanical approaches
for understanding organizations. There are two distinctive ways of approaching management and
leadership. One is a rational –technical approach emphasizing certainty and control.
The other is a more expensive, artistic conception encouraging flexibility, creativity, and
interpretation. The first sees managers as technicians; the second sees them as leaders and
artists.
There are always alternatives in any managerial quandary. Tragedies occur because managers
cannot foresee the issues, are unaware of their choices, or lack the artistry and skill to chart a
different course.
Chapter 2
Properties of organizations:
1. Organizations are complex: they are populated by people whose behavior is notoriously
hard to understand and predict. Interaction among diverse individuals and groups make
organizations even more complicated.
2. Organizations are surprisingly: what you expect is often dramatically different from that
happens. Taking action in a collective enterprise is like shooting a wobbly cue ball into a
large and complex array of self –directed billiard balls. So many balls careen in so many
directions that it is impossible to know how things will eventually sort out.
3. Organizations are deceptive. The defy expectations and then camouflage surprises.
4. Organizations are ambiguous: the sum of complexity, unpredictability, and deception is
rampant ambiguity. Ambiguity originates from a number of sources. Sometimes
information is incomplete or vague. The same information may be interpreted in a variety
of ways at the times, ambiguity is deliberately created to hide problems or avoid conflict.
Organizational learning:
An environment filled with complexity, surprise, deception and ambiguity makes it hard to
extract lessons for future action. Yet an increasingly turbulent, rapidly shifting environment
requires contemporary organizations to learn better and faster just to survive.
Senge emphasizes the value of “system maps “. That clarify how a system works.
Oshry (1995) makes the same basic point- system blindness is widespread-but emphasizes; cause
rooted in asymmetric relationships; between tops and bottoms, vendors and customers, when we
are at the apex of an organization. For example, we lose track of what it is like in the middle or at
the bottom. We cannot see the system dynamics are producing a “dance of blind reflex”. Both argue
that failure to read system dynamics traps us in a cycle of blaming and self-defense.
Basically, they try to make it simple. One way is to develop systems and technology to collect and
process information. Another is to break complexity into smaller pieces and assign chunks to
specialized individuals or units. Still another approach is to higher or develops sophisticated
professionals with skills in handling segments of environmental complexity. These and other
methods are all helpful but not always sufficient. Despite organizations best efforts, bad things still
happens.
When it is hard to identify a guilty individual, then a second popular alternative is to blame
the bureaucracy. Things went haywire because the organization is stifled by rules and red tape-or
because it is out of control for lack of clear goals and roles. One or the other explanation almost
always applies.
A third fallacy attributes problems to a thirst for power. This view sees organization as jungles
filled with predators and preys. Victory goes to the more adroit, or the more treacherous. Political
games and turf wars cause most organizational problems.
Chapter 3
Getting organized:
We begin our examination of the structural frame by discussing its core assumptions, origins, and
basic forms. The possibilities for designing an organizations structure are almost limitless, but any
design must address to core issues:
1. Describe the major options.
2. Discuss structural imperatives to consider when arranging a particular work setting.
Structural assumption:
The assumptions of the structural frame are reflected in current approaches to social architecture
and organizational design. These assumptions reflect a belief in rationality and a faith that the right
formal arrangements minimize problems and maximize performance. Six assumptions under grid
the structural frame see the slide
Vertical coordination:
With vertical coordination, higher levels coordinate and control the work of subordinates through
authority, rules, policies, planning, and control systems.
Authority:
A change of command is a hierarchy of managerial and supervisory strata, each with legitimate
power to shape and direct the behavior of those at lower levels.
Action planning:
Specifies methods and time frames for decisions and actions as in “increase this month’s sales by
using a company wide sales pitch. Action planning works best when its easier to assess how a job is
done , then to measure whether its objectives where achieved .
Lateral coordination:
Though efficient, vertical coordination is not always effective. Lateral forms of coordination are
typically less formalized and more flexible then authority bound systems and rules. They can be
simpler and quicker as well. See slides
The self-organizing networks bias toward decentralization, teaming, and cross functional,
and cross geographical work makes it well attuned to complexity and change. But networks are
inherently difficult to control, and evolution produces vipers as well as orchids there is no
guarantee that we will like the results.
Chapter 4
Mintzbergs fives:
See slides.or pg 73
Simple structure:
A simple structure has only two levels: the strategic apex and operative level. A startup company
typically begins with a simple structure the virtues of simple structures are its flexibility and
adaptability. One person directs the entire operation.
Machine bureaucracy:
MacDonald’s is a classic machine bureaucracy. Important decisions are made at the strategic apex:
day-to-day operations are controlled by managers and standardize procedure. Unlike simple
hierarchies, machine bureaucracy has large support staffs and a sizeable techno structure, with
many layers between apex and operating levels.
Professional bureaucracy:
Its operating core is large relative to its structural parts, particularly the techno structure. Few
managerial levels exist between the strategic apex and operating levels, creating a flat and
decentralized profile. Though producing many be, these arrangements leads to problem of
coordination and equality control. A professional bureaucracy responds slowly to external change.
Professional bureaucracies regularly stumble when they try to exercise greater over control over
the operating core.
Divisionalized form:
In this structure the bulk of the work is done in quasi-autonomous units. Each division serves a
distinct market and supports its own functional units.
Adhocracy:
It is a loose, flexible-renewing organic form tied together mostly through lateral means. Such
structures are most often found in conditions of turbulence and rapid change.
Helgesens web of inclusion:
Helgesen coined the expression “web of inclusion” to describe an architectural form more circular
then hierarchical. The web builds from the center out. Its architect works much like a spider.
Spinning new thread of connections and reinforcing existing strands. The webs center and
periphery are interconnected: action in one place ripples across the entire configuration, forming
“an interconnected cosmic web in which the threads of all forces and events form an in separable
net of endlessly, mutually conditioned relations.
Why restructure:
See pg 84
Chapter 5
Design options:
1. One boss arrangement; one person has authority over others. Information and decision
flows from the top. Group members offer information to and communicate primarily with
official leader rather than one other. Although this arrangement is efficient and fast, it
works best with a relatively simple and straight forward task.
2. Dual authority: two individuals are given responsibility over a specific area of the groups
work. Information and decision flows through them. This arrangement works when a task is
divisible; it reduces the span of control, allowing the person in charge to concentrated on
mission, strategy, or relationships’ with higher-ups.
3. Simple hierarchy: with a middle manager who reports to the boss and in turn supervises
and communicates with others. This arrangement is used extensively at the white house. It
treats the president to focus on mission and external relations while leaving operational
details to the chief of staff.
4. Circle network: where information and decision flow sequentially from group members to
each other. Each can add to or modify to whatever comes around. This configuration is
more egalitarian and simplifies communications,.
5. All channel network or star network; this design is similar to the Helgesens web of
inclusion. It creates multiple connections so that each person can talk to anyone else.
Information flows freely ; decisions require touching multiple bases, creating effective team
work requires a design of roles and relationships well suited to the situation .
Chapter 6
Like Mc gregor , argrys felt organizations often treated workers like Childs rather than
adults-a view expressed in the Charlie chaplains 1936 film , modern times. Argrys saw person-
structure conflict built into traditional principles of organizational design and managenment.
Argrys argued that employees inevitably look for ways to respond to these frustrations , he
identified six possibilities
“free: means giving components(work units and people) that are autonomous and able to respond
to problems and opportunities in market segments.
Fast: means having the capability to assess and respond quickly to these situations.
Facile: means being able to change thinking practices and established routines in the light of new
information or developments”
Handy sees organizations adopting a “shamrock” form, with three clusters of people:
1. A core group of managers and professionals with skills and capacities critical to the
enterprise.
2. The basic workforce” increasingly working part-time or in shifts to provide the necessary
flexibility”.
3. A “ contractual fringe “ of people who do work that can be done more cheaply by outsiders.
Downsizing works best when a combination of new technology and smarter management
produces significant productivity gains, making it possible for fewer people to do more. Yet even
when downsizing works, it risks trading short term gains for long term decay.
Downsizing and outsourcing also have a corrosive effect on employee motivation and
commitment.