Second Task: Organizing
The second task of effective management is organizing. Effective people do not wait to be organized; they organize themselves for their own benefit in their personal tasks and their area of responsibility.
Once again I will limit myself to the most important things here that, in my experience, determine the effectiveness with which this task is carried out, and this is largely independent of any specific circumstances. The structure of companies and most other institutions in society will, if the signs are not deceptive, be one of the most widely discussed topics in the coming years, an ongoing problem for which there are not really any solutions at present. Many organizations are experimenting and in most there is great uncertainty. With the exception of those companies that run a simple business, and those institutions that have a very simple task, all are, in some way, involved in organization. The changes that are taking place in the economy and society are forcing us to reconsider these structures increasingly frequently. However, it seems to me that no one has a ready solution at present.
Therefore, this chapter is not about the future macrostructure of an institution, but about that which should always be given attention in organization, regardless of the stage of development or restructuringa company or any other institution may be at.
Warning against “Organizitis”
An ever increasing number of managers follows a strategy of constant reorganization and restructuring, so that “things are always on the move”. I fail to understand this; I consider it to be wrong. It has nothing to do with sensible organization, it is a disease – let us call it “organizitis”. It primarily occurs in people who believe they should be “dynamic” at all costs, or in those people who wish to be featured in the media. In any case, it is a mistake made by corporate and also personnel managers.
People can certainly cope with change, but they also require periods of calm and stability to perform productively. Anyone who changes and reorganizes for the sake of change risks a clear erosion of the company’s results and will produce “wait-and-see attitude”, lethargy, and anxiety.
Organizational changes can be compared to surgical operations on an organism, a living organism and without anesthetics. Surgeons are ina considerably better position than managers; they can at least put their patients under anesthetic. Managers cannot do this. The manager’s “patients” are fully aware of whatever is coming their way and they react accordingly.
Good surgeons have learnt that they should not operate unless strictly necessary. Only when all other means are futile will they take up the scalpel. Good managers behave in the same way. They do not reorganize unless it is necessary, and if they do have to, it is only after proper preparations have been made, and after the procedure has been thoroughly thought out and all the necessary support measures have been taken.
There Is no such Thing as “Good” Organization
Most people, especially inexperienced ones, have the idea in their mind that there are forms of organizations that function without friction. Whether management or business administration will ever find such forms is uncertain. At any rate, we do not yet know of any.
All organizations are imperfect: They all produce conflicts, coordination problems, problems with regard to information, areas of interpersonal friction, a lack of clarity, interactions, and all the other possible difficulties. In my opinion we would be well advised to assume that there is no choice between good and bad organization, but there is a choice between bad or less bad. Compromises are necessary in every organization.
Furthermore, we can rarely select a “pure” form of organization. These exist only in textbooks. Real organizations are practically always a combination of several “pure” forms; they are hybrid structures. There is nothing negative in this, unless you happen to be a purist. There is no need to be alarmed, if we arrive at a hybrid form as the best solution to an organizational problem. However, many people do get alarmed due to the misguided notion that they must follow a theory. In reality, they move further and further away from a practical and useful method of organization.
All too often managers overlook the fact that there may be other solutions for problems which are thought to have only organizational solutions. What is overlooked most frequently is that most problems, while it may not be possible to solve them immediately, can be alleviated more quickly and easily with better management than through structural changes.
In this regard, I recommend the following rules. The optimum position can be achieved in areas where “good” organization (I use this word now despite the reservations just expressed, but in quotes) is combined with good management. However, this is a rare case. If both factors are negative and there is bad organization with bad management, we are faced with an almost hopeless case. These represent the two clear cases.
What is the situation like when one of the two factors is good and the other is bad? In my experience, if it is the management, the craftsmanlike professionalism that is bad, it can never be rectified or compensated for by “good organization”. In the reverse case remarkable results can often be achieved. Time and time again, I have observed that managers can give outstanding performances, even in bad structures.
There are managers who do not let miserable organization stand in the way of giving their best, and thus achieve results in the face of all adversity. Of course, they get agitated about the ponderousness, the bureaucracy, the slowness or whatever the problem may be (usually it is several problems simultaneously), but they fight or muddle their way through.
The Three Basic Issues of Organizing
In all fields there is a risk of not seeing the woods for the trees. In organizing it is easy to get lost in a maze of objectives and criteria that are to be met by the organization. The worst thing that we can do is to overload an organization with requirements. The more the requirements, the less the organization can achieve.
Effective organizations are single-purpose structures. Whether they can be simple is another issue. If they are, it is all for the good, but even single-purpose devices or machines can be very complex. “Simple” or “single-purpose” are often confused with one other. For example, a fighter aircraft is a single, purpose system, but it is certainly not simple. Its application is very restricted, but it performs its function better than any other device.
Essentially, there are just three questions to be answered; these are the basic questions for all forms of organizing. They protect an organization from being overburdened and overtaxed. These questions have been formulated with a company in mind. However, they are applicable in general when modified appropriately.
How do we organize ourselves so that attention remains focused on that which the customer pays us for?
How do we organize ourselves so that the employees really do what they are paid to do?
How do we organize ourselves so that the top management really does what it is paid to do?
To some extent the organization forms a bridge between these three questions. Here is some further information on the questions. Every company these days professes to have a profound belief in customer orientation. However, it has not, by any means, been realized. Firstly, because it is not easy to determine what a customer is really payinga company for. Secondly, even if we do know, there are numerous ways of organizing that completely disregard the customer instead of making him the focus of attention. An example that clarifies both the first and second questions is that of an insurance company, whose sales staff has to carry out administrative work in addition to selling policies. All analyses show that the sales staff of numerous insurance companies can, at the most, devote 40 percent of their time to customers; the rest of the time, a larger percentage, has to be spent on a widely differing range of administrative work. Therefore in reality, the customer is not the center of attention nor are the employees doing what they are really paid to do.
With regard to the second question, it is worthwhile to regularly question employees about their contribution. Why are you on the payroll of this company? In an astonishing number of cases we either receive no answers at all or the answers are very vague. However, we also find time and again that organizations hinder employees in their work rather than really supporting them. Quite frequently the obstacle is the boss.
The third question for organizing refers to the things on which the top management actually spends its valuable time. Are the actual top management tasks really being carried out? Or does the top management get engrossed in day-to-day business? Does the organization really enable the top management level to tackle those problems that can only be solved with a view and awareness of the...
