The Vale of Glamorgan Council - Essay Example

Managing Organisations - The Vale of Glamorgan Council Introduction Within modern organizations, change is usually necessary in order to introduce new practices targeting the improvement of performance either in the short or the long term. In this context, Poole (1998, 45) noticed that ‘when change is needed in an organization it is likely the culture or identity of the organization will be targeted for change; the transformed organization, whether it be minor (first-order change) or major (second-order change), will not be the same as its predecessor’. In other words, change usually refers to the review of business cultures but it is also possible that many business practices are restructured and redesigned in order to meet the needs of the particular market. In most cases, these efforts face the resistance of employees who are used to specific working conditions and any possible differentiation would be negative for their interests (at least from their point of view). Regarding this issue it has been found by Eoyang et al. (2001, 5) that ‘many organization change initiatives start at the top and deal strongly with any resistance from system agents that blocks progress; common ways of responding to resistance include downsizing, restructuring, and re-engineering’. In accordance with the above in order for any leader to manage effectively a specific organization, it is necessary that all the appropriate preparation is made including the accurate evaluation of current business strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, any initiatives for organizational change should be carefully designed trying to provide to employees sufficient explanations on policies applied asking at the same time for their active participation – which is usually a necessary requirement for the successful implementation of new plans of action within a specific organization. Current paper examines all issues related with the restructuring of organizational activities focusing on the implementation of specific theoretical models (wherever this effort could be successful) on the various organizational sectors. The Vale of Glamorgan Council is used as an example of effective management under the influence of the application of Mintzberg, Morgan and Quinn models that are going to be analytically explained in the sections that follow. A. Vale of Glamorgan Council – Overview of the organization The Vale of Glamorgan Council represents an area with significant importance for British economy (in terms both of the commercial activities of commuters but also for its population). More specifically, in accordance with the particular authority’s official website the Vale of Glamorgan Council ‘lies immediately west of Cardiff between the M4 and the Severn Estuary covering 33097 hectares (331 square miles) with 53 kilometres of coastline, of which 19 kilometres is Heritage Coast; its towns are Barry, Penarth, Llantwit Major, Dinas Powys and Cowbridge; Barry, the largest town with a population of 48,000, is the Vales administrative centre, a seaside resort and port’ (The Vale of Glamorgan Council, official website, 2007). In other words, the particular Council has a significant presence within the Southeast Britain covering an important part of the country (in terms of trade, fishing and other commercial activities). Because of its population, the Vale of Glamorgan Council has a significant number of Councillors (approximately 47); each of them has the responsibility for all policies applied on a particular area within the Council. On the other hand, Council Services are extended in many sectors and they are all monitored by a Corporate Management team. It is for this reason that the applicability of organizational models (as applied usually in firms of the private sector) has been examined by the Vale of Glamorgan Council. It seems that these models – if applied – could help the Council’s Corporate Management team to be prepared more appropriately regarding the distribution of tasks and the monitoring of activities within the specific Council. B. "Mintzberg" and "Morgan" models within modern organizations The Morgan model is analytically presented in Figure 1. The main characteristics of this model are the following ones: ‘many small organizations co-operate so as to deliver a project or projects; the large organization consists of lots of little ones that make their contribution in a cooperative manner’ (Morgan, 1998, in Cape, 2002, 18). The organization presented through the Morgan model could be also characterized as ‘networked’. More specifically, in the same terms as computers in the WWW are connected with a main server, organizations within a particular area are connected with a ‘central’ organizational unit that monitors their activities. The above framework could be also applied within a particular organization where the ‘parts’ of the diagram will represent the firm’s sectors and the central part will be the organization’s administrative unit (strategic management department). The positive aspect of the above model is the fact that in such a framework all units that depend on the central unit are closely monitored (failures are difficult to occur and even in this case the causes of the failure could be identified within a short period of time). On the other hand, this model creates ‘autonomous’ units within a specific organizational environment. This assumption is also supported by the fact that there is no communication or interaction between the firm’s particular units but they are all depended only on the central unit. This means that in case of a failure in the central unit, it is very likely that the company will be led to a ‘breakdown’ – its units would be not able to cooperate and continue their activities as normally. On the other hand, the Mintzberg model for modern organization is presented in Figure 2. In accordance with this model, the firm’s central unit, the operations department continues to have a decisive role in the success of organizational initiatives. More specifically, as in the case of Morgan model before, the operational unit of the organization has the responsibility for the control and the evaluation of all organizational activities. On the other hand, the structure of the organization is such that its strategic department is at the top of all firm’s activities controlling any action of employees and decide on the application of all firm’s plans. Moreover, the rest of organizational activities have been divided into two major parts (representing by the relevant departments), i.e. the support staff (employees) and the technical structure (technical support related with organizational activities, referring to both human resources and IT systems used within all firm’s sectors). The main advantage of this plan is related with the position and the powers of firm’s strategic unit which has a complete and effective control over all organizational activities; this means that the chances for failures in the initiatives attempted by the firm’s employees are minimized. On the other hand, employees have a significant role in the firm’s operation. However, there is no close cooperation between the firm’s departments which are rather ‘autonomous’ to each other with no direct dependence on the firm’s central unit. This fact could be positive in cases of failures of the firm’s operational centre (as described before in the case of Morgan’s model); however it could be also negative in case that one of the firm’s departments faces significant problems and the direct intervention of other departments is considered as necessary. Regarding the particular model it is stated that this model could be viewed as ‘an alternative view of an organization that highlights “how a place works, depicting critical interactions, among people, products and information”’ (Mintzberg 1999, 88, in Cape, 2002, 19). Moreover, it is noticed by Mintzberg that his model promotes a particular type of organizational structure which is characterized by the existence of a ‘glue’ that holds together all organizational departments: 1) MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT (co-ordination of work by process of informal communication; control of work rests in the hands of the doers); 2) DIRECT SUPERVISION (organisation outgrows its simplest state; co-ordination by someone taking responsibility for the work of others); 3) STANDARDISATION OF WORK PROCESSES (When the content of work is specified and programmed as a "system"); 4) STANDARDISATION OF SKILLS (some work or processes cannot be standardised. e.g. in social work or teaching) and 5) STANDARDISATION OF OUTPUTS/RESULTS (with outputs defined, the fit between tasks is pre-determined and can be performance monitored; work results can be specified by performance dimensions, conversion ratios, profitability and cost indicators, time) (Business Open Learning Archive, 2005). The above five elements of organizational structure, as presented and analyzed by Mintzberg, are significant for any organization. In the case of implementation of specific plans for change, organizational departments should be regarded as ‘autonomous’ units that should be all, however, concentrate on the same target: the improvement of organizational performance. The structure of organization as presented by Mintzberg means that in case that plans of change are necessary within a particular organization, these plans should be ‘customized’ to the structure and the needs of each particular department; all plans should have similar targets aiming to the development of organizational activities in the long term. The model of Quinn and Rohrbaugh is presented in Figure 3. In accordance with this model organizational activities could be divided into two major categories: these involving in the firm’s internal environment and these involving in the firm’s external environment. Apart from this differentiation of organizational activities, all initiatives made within a particular organization should be evaluated using two different criteria: flexibility and control. From another point of view it is suggested that Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) ‘discovered two dimensions of effectiveness; the first dimension is related to organizational focus, from an internal emphasis on people in the organization to an external focus of the organization itself; the second dimension represents the contrast between stability and control and flexibility and change’ (TCW, 2004). However, the differentiation among organizational activities using the above criteria is not always feasible; there are organizational activities that can present elements of both dimensions described above. Their evaluation using the principles of the first or the second dimension solely would be therefore inaccurate. The advantage of the specific model is the fact that no strict distribution of organizational activities is made (like in Morgan’s and Mitzberg’s model presented before). It seems that all firm’s departments can equally participate in all organizational initiatives. However, the above structure could be regarded as having also negative impact on firm’s activity. More specifically, because there is no clear distribution of roles within the organization it is very likely that the effectiveness of the firm’s departments is reduced. On the other hand, the control over the organizational activities becomes extremely difficult. The speed in the design and the application of organizational plans that such a scheme offers could be compared therefore with the absence of sufficient control for the appropriateness of organizational decisions in all the firm’s sectors. Therefore, the above model could be effectively applied only in organizations where the control over the particular organizational departments is appropriately designed and applied. C. Application of "Mintzberg, Morgan and Quinn" models on Vale of Glamorgan Council In accordance with the issues presented above, it could be stated that the organizational model that could be more appropriate for the Vale of Glamorgan Council will be that of Morgan. The particular model is in accordance with the existed structure of the particular Council (there is the central administration department which controls all other departments) and its aims in the long term (development of the Council’s services retaining their dependence on its Central Unit). The model of Mintzberg could not be applied in the particular case because in the specific model there is no direct dependence on the firm’s administrative department. In fact all firm’s departments are just situated by the firm’s strategic department which has no specific power of control and direct intervention on their activities. Such a scheme could not be applied on the Vale of Glamorgan Council where the need for continuous monitoring of the initiatives taken by the Council’s services is high. As for the Quinn model, this is characterized by the lack of distribution of roles and powers within a specific organization (as analyzed above). In the case of the specific Council such a structure could cause severe damages in the local community where it is necessary that all tasks are clearly distributed among the Council’s departments (so that commuters will be able to search for the appropriate department when having a specific problem or regarding their rights and obligations within the community). D. Evaluation of change management schemes applied on Vale of Glamorgan Council In order to evaluate the change management schemes applied in Vale of Glamorgan Council, it would be necessary to refer to the particular elements of change management as they can be observed within modern organizations. In this context, it is suggested by Bunker et al. (2005, 12) that ‘much of that failure stems from not understanding how to manage the structural side of change and the human dynamic of transition’. On the other hand, Katzenbach (1996, 149) supports that ‘change efforts are often conceived as waves of initiatives that sweep through an organization from the top down, or the bottom up, or both, and flow across functions’. It is for this reason that change management initiatives, as already explained above, are often related with a resistance of employees to cooperate to cooperate to the proposed plans of change. This resistance can be sometimes extremely strong in accordance with the personal interests that are going to be influenced by the attempted restructuring of organizational activities. From another point of view, Greve (1998, 59) found that change can be often regarded as ‘an outcome jointly determined by motivation to change, opportunity to change, and capability to change’. It should be also noticed that change can have many aspects influencing many organizational sectors. In fact, Huy (2002, 31) revealed that ‘fundamental change in personnel, strategy, organizational identity, or established work roles and interests often triggers intense emotions’. The above study refers to the issue of resistance within the workplace because of the attempted change of existed organizational practices. This issue, which already developed before, is of particular importance for the success of any change initiatives within a particular organization. More specifically, in many cases plans of change cannot be applied on a specific organization because the resistance expected (or the resistance that actually took place) is too strong; therefore the consequences on the firm’s performance could be expected to be extensive. In this case, any change initiative is either postponed or cancelled. Other methods of organizational restructuring are then likely to be applied (like the gradual review of employees’ performance and appropriate interventions of the HR department when re-distribution of roles is considered as necessary). Conclusion Generally, it could be stated that ‘change is a constant in modern working life; no matter how managers and employees struggle to control their lives, change is forced on them, reinforcing the feeling of being a pawn in someone elses game’(Rosenberg, 1993, 21). In other words, change is a necessary element of all organizational activities but it is most related with the workplace; the changes in personnel are considered to be the most important part of the firm’s operation but also the most difficult part of employees’ life. On the other hand, change is inevitable and for this reason it is noticed by Wright (2001, 15) that the main priority for firms within the international market should be ‘to develop truly sustainable competitive advantage in the knowledge economy, they need to capture, catalog, transfer, and institutionalize knowledge that precludes peoples daily actions’. However, the design and the implementation of appropriate change management plan is a challenging task for all managers within the global market. The existence of a high level of communication within the workplace is an extremely positive criterion for the success of any attempted change within the specific organization. For this reason, Moore (1995, 143) mentioned that ‘what is strategic in the communication is not that it is designed to be manipulative, but instead that it is designed to advance particular policies or organizational strategies by making them comprehensible’. From another point of view, Coombs et al. (2004, 491) noticed that managers need to understand how aggressive behaviour may signal organizational problems such as stress, resistance to policies, and feelings of powerlessness and be perceived as functional coping mechanisms for some workers’. The above study refers to the issue of resistance to proposed changes within a specific organization. Despite the fact that resistance can delay the application of a particular plan of change, it is possible to avoid any relevant reaction through the application of appropriate techniques in advance preparing employees for the attempted initiative. In current paper, three specific models of organizational change, this of Morgan, the one of Mintzberg and that of Quinn have been examined as of their applicability in the Vale of Glamorgan Council. The application of these models should be followed by a series of changes within existed organizational practices; however the fewer the differences between the particular model and the current organizational structure of the specific Council, the fewer the changes required. The analytical examination of the content and the role of these models led to the conclusion that among them the most appropriate could be considered to be the Morgan’s model. More specifically, it is because this model is closer to existed structure of Vale of Glamorgan Council that it was chosen among the models suggested. The existence of similarities between this model and the current structure of Vale of Glamorgan Council means that fewer changes would be required in the case of adoption of this model by the above Council. On the other hand, Morgan’s model suits best to the needs and the aims of Vale of Glamorgan Council ensuring the existence of continuous control over the activities of all Council’s services. References Bunker, K., Wakefield, M. (2005). Changing Workforce: Leading Effectively When Change Is the Norm Canadian Government Managers Discover How to Weather Draconian Layoffs and Budget Cuts by Turning Inward to Become More Authentic. The Public Manager, 34(4): 9-17 Business Open Learning Archive (BOLA) (2005) Henry Mintzberg: Five Organisational Coordinating Mechanisms, [Online], available at http://www.bola.biz/mintzberg/mintstru.html Cape, G. (2002) Growth, Change and Organizational Structure. The Evolving Relationship between Form and Function. McGill University, Montreal, Canada, [Online], available at http://www.cvsrd.org/eng/mmp/mmp/5.pdf Coombs, T., Holladay, S. (2004). Understanding the Aggressive Workplace: Development of the Workplace Aggression Tolerance Questionnaire. Communication Studies, 55(3): 481-497 Greve, H. (1998). Performance, Aspirations and Risky Organizational Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1): 58-63 Eoyang, G., Olson, E. (2001). Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Huy, O. (2002). Emotional Balancing of Organizational Continuity and Radical Change: The Contribution of Middle Managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1): 31-66 Katzenbach, J. (1996). Real Change. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1: 148-153 Moore, M. (1995). ‘Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government’. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA Poole, P. (1998). Words and Deeds of Organizational Change. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(1): 45-47 Rosenberg, D. (1993). Eliminating Resistance to Change. Security Management, 37(1): 20-22 TCW (2004) Competing Values Framework, [Online], available at http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communication/Competing_Values_Framework.doc/ Vale of Glamorgan, official website, available at http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/our_council/council/council_structure/senior_officers__departments.aspx Value Based Management Net (2007) Competing Values Framework, Quinn, Rauhrbaug, [Online], available at http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_quinn_competing_values_framework.html Wright, D. (2001). Using technology to derive value from knowledge communities. KnowledgeNets, May 15-17: 1-5 Appendices Figure 1 – Morgan model for modern organization, Networked organization (source: Cape, 2002, 18) Figure 2 - Mintzberg model for modern organization, Organigraph (source: Cape, 2002, 19) Figure 3 – Quinn model for organizational effectiveness (source: Valuebasedmanagement Net, 2007) Read More