Robert Musson
Microsoft
Issues of Organizational Structure and Leadership Associated with Process Deployment
Agenda
Timeline
History
of Organizational Theory
By 1900
Early
190000
Regional control concepts do not transfer to the modern assembly line
Modern
Corporate Form
00tructure
follows strategy00/i>
A. Chandler, 1962
Organizational
Structure
AND strategy is a response to the environment
THEN structure must
somehow follow the environment
if ((structure > strategy )
&& ( strategy == environment )
{
structure > environment;
}
, i.e. 卢
Static
Environmental
Factors
Environmental
Model
Dynamism
Complexity
Low
High
High
Machine Bureaucracy
Quick
Aside on Bureaucracy
Adhocracy
Adhocracy
Organizational
Archetypes
Dynamism
Complexity
Low
High
High
Machine Bureaucracy
ProfessionalBureaucracy
PSP
PSP
PSP
Simple Structure
ProfessionalBureaucracy
TSP
Implications
Environment -> Strategy -> Structure
No, really00/font> Environment -> Strategy -> Structure Once more for emphasis . . .Environment -> Strategy -> Structure
Implications
Environment -> Strategy -> Structure
No, really00/font> Environment -> Strategy -> Structure Once more for emphasis . . .Environment -> Strategy -> Structure
Leadership
and Structure
Leadership
Behaviors
So What?
Implications
for Coaches
Identifying
the type of organization
Machine
Bureaucracy
Professional
Bureaucracy
Simple
Structure
Adhocracy
Divisionalized
Form
Example
Deployment
Conclusion
Questions
Issues of Organizational Structure and Leadership Associated with Process Deployment
The CMM is often described as defining the 00hat00of process improvement without the 00ow00or 00hy00 The PSP provides one possible description of 00ow.00nbsp; The 00hy00 is associated with the strategy of the organization, but little guidance exists in either the CMM or the PSP as to the possible implications of new organizational capabilities.
This session will present a brief history
of organizational theory and provide an overview on relevant current
thinking. It will relate elements of the CMM, PSP, and TSP to
reasons for implementing various organizational structures and provide
descriptions of a series of strategy challenges associated with the
different structures. It will describe how various organization types
address the needs of differing business environments. Finally, this
session will describe the leadership attributes associated with deploying
new practices comparing and contrasting to those required to realize
results through higher product quality. The correlations between various
leadership behaviors and quality will be presented.
1
This talk will begin with a brief
history of time from the perspective of organizational theory. Then,
one specific theory will be examined in detail, namely, one from Henry
Mintzberg. Then, we will describe the behaviors theory define by Bass.
One might ask, so what? At this point
rather than wait until the end. Perhaps a better description is the
implication for TSP coaches. The CMM provides little guidance
on organization. The idea of 00nstitutionalization00exists, and
of course senior management verification, but nothing on fitting processes
into the organizational structure.
It is not really the place of the
CMM to include descriptions of org structure.
2
3
Much of the modern organization was
caused by a train wreck. In the 182000 and 3000, railroads consisted
of short spurs of track, typically no more than 50 miles long. Trains
would travel in one direction and then simply backup. There was only
one train for each section of track. To go a great distance, one would
need to switch trains several times.
Then, about 1840, a new innovation
that revolutionized the railroad was invented00amely switching technology.
Multiple sections of railroad were consolidated to create the ability
for trains to travel all over and have many different destinations.
However, one unfortunate side effect was the possibility of two different
trains traveling on the same track in opposite directions. In those
days, trains did not go fast enough to simply pass through one another.
In 1843, the inevitable happened. A head on collision occurred on a
section of track, owned by a company that would later become the Pennsylvania
Railroad, caused the deaths of 17 people and sparked a congressional
investigation into the cause.
4
5
6
Charismatic leaders are the pep talk
kind of leaders. They can get the improvement effort rolling, but they
may not be as swayed by the data as rational leaders. Transformational
leaders are great during times of change, but they may not be the best
ones to have in place once the change is standardized. Like Rational
leaders, Transactional leaders may be more adapt at using the information
from the teams.
Lassaize-faire leaders tend to be
hands off, so they are nice to have during a grass roots deployment
effort. The optimal organization is likely one that has an environment
that is becoming more complex and senior leaders that are lassaize-faire
and charismatic.
Finally, there are what is known as
00ubstitutes for leadership00 Kerr (1976) proposed the term
to describe cultural situations that are non-leader sources for direction.
The concept of a self-managed team is an attempt to put into place substitutes
for leadership. It may be the biggest reason that leaders oppose TSP,
namely, TSP puts into place practices that are redundant with any of
the other types of leadership. Rational, transactional leaders would
not be needed in a fully deployed TSP organization. Charismatic leaders
become little more than cheerleaders. Of course, this view is na茂ve
and dangerous. TSP allows leaders to focus on important issues, like
innovation, rather than mundane issues like task completion rates.
7
8
9
download Issues of Organizational Structure and Leadership Associated with ...
