Practice Management and Leadership - Essay Example

The current cultural and business era has been called “post-modern” by some. On a philosophical level, this new era is identified by a rejection of absolute truths and grand narratives used to explain the progressive evolution of society. At the same time it post modern thought has brought to the surface a multitude of different perspectives on society and an appreciation of different organizational structures. The post modern idea has been used to understand the different facets of global competitiveness in the marketplace on the one hand and utilising technology and the power of information to remain localized in approach to personal business relationships on the other. Post-modern thinking has become somewhat lost in it’s the celebration of differences rather than focusing on the searching for commonality. The post modern society is leading to the development of post modern organisational structures which are being used as contrasts to bureaucratic forms of organisation, which were unable to cope with the demands of the post modern condition. These organisations are loosely coupled, fluid, organic, and less rigid instead of the static and mechanistic bureaucratic structures that have traditionally preoccupied organisations. Also in the post modern organization, there is a reduction in the number of people working in specific operational roles, while employment in professional, knowledge based roles has risen when compared to older organizations of the past. On a purely theorist level, the post modern organization does not and cannot exist. For example, from a post modern perspective, a contemporary form of organization would put little emphasis on planning and control and would create an essentially chaotic and reactive environment. But this extreme example cannot be allowed to rule in today’s businesses, since most organizations today spend a large amount of their time and money on rationally calculating things like which market to move into, which firm to swallow up, etc. It would be valid to conclude that at this present time we can witness a mixture of modern and post modern forms in most organizations. This way of being can develop into a more open, and pliable organization. But then of course this so called openness can cause many uncertainties. Thus the role of design management has come to embody the ways in which organizations are redesigning themselves in order to free the workers from bureaucratic shackles and become the involved, fluid and connected ‘post modern’ organization. A Working Example One example of this kind of thinking is the St. Luke’s advertising agency, in London, which was formed in 1995 by thirty-five people, experienced advertising industry workers who chose to pursue their own destiny rather than become fodder for the next corporate merger. (Lissack, 2002) The move was initiated by Andy Law, who said he “. . . wanted to unlock the human potential trapped in conventional business environments in order to enhance creativity and competitiveness.” According to Lissack, three key elements went into the establishment of St. Luke’s as a post modern business organization. 1. The company’s equity was distributed equally among all staffing order to eliminate the ego and greed problem that can be rampant in the ad industry 2. No one has a personal office, rather each worker had a place he or she can go to each day but this space was not exclusively his or her own. 3. Third, the traditionally linear mode of creating advertisements was transformed into a more nonlinear creative process. The people at St Luke’s experienced what could be called a culture shock as they struggled to identify territory and personal space in an environment which was designed to eliminate the same. The process, at some points, seemed to be creating chaos and the lack of direction until the people working in the organization began to catch the vision of non-linear connectivity rather than chain of command bureaucracy. The agency is a complete success, and has tripled in size in less than a decade. The traditional way of operating in the ad industry, as well as most industries, is rather linear start to finish production line approach. This business model is left over from the last great revolution to hit the business world – the industrial revolution, which made its money on the power of mechanized machinery which could duplicate tasks at little cost, and create greater advantages through economy. However, with the advent of the computer revolution in the 80’s and the internet enabled business model which can communicate specific data in an instant, the mass production of the industrial age is become outdated. As a result, management designers have to address the effects of this change on the interaction of human resources within the organization. The process of working an idea through a chain of command can be cumbersome. The linear progression model encourages ego and territorialism because each person feels a need to defend his or her contribution. Personal politics become ingrained into the organization, and the process becomes more about dealing with the people than addressing the goals of the project. In the event of a customer change in direction, or a design specification change, the entire linear process must begin all over from the beginning. As a result, the best and most creative people are often hamstrung by the process. According to Lissack’s work, people in these organizations and in this context, where they felt they were personally contributing to a larger purpose, were more able to be flexible and more willing to change. They didn’t feel the need to defend personal territory and buttress their contribution through a rigid bureaucracy. In turn, people’s capacity to adapt made the organization more financially successful. (2002) The evolution of the Design management approach The evolution of the openly designed management structure has been coming of age for a number of decades. In what could be the first appearance of this approach to organizational culture, the ‘team brainstorming’ approach was launched as early as 1957. Alex Osborn’s book called Applied Imagination presented this line of thought to the business community which quickly rejected it because of a perceived loss of effectiveness. Still lost in the confines of the rigid bureaucratic organization, the idea of spending time brainstorming in order to facilitate taping into deeper levels of creativity did not flow with the rest of the organization’s culture. According to Sutton and Hargadon (1996), much research has since been undertaken in attempts to measure brainstorming effectiveness. Research papers indicate that brainstorming was considered in 208 articles between 1967 and 1994, and that findings from numerous experiments led researchers to conclude that face-to-face brainstorming was ineffective. These results are disputed by Sutton as they did not necessarily seek to measure the quality of ideas as well as the quantity of ideas which were produced as a result of creative non-linear brainstorming. Osborns (1957) claim that compared with working alone, the average person in a brainstorming group could generate twice as many ideas. However, the experience of those individuals and organizations as a whole which enter into an organization adopting an interactive non-linear model is that for a period of time, the production levels do indeed drop. When a golfer goes to visit the local pro for a number of lessons, the result is often that the golfers score increases as he unlearns bad habits before genuine progress can be made toward a better golf game. The same can be true for the organization which adopts a non-linear design management paradigm. The organization struggles for identity and order as it seeks to establish a new equilibrium. In 1935, Karl Lewin was the first to formally identify that this process was necessary within the life of an organization if it is going to successfully adopt a new cultural identity and working structure. In Lewin’s first encapsulation change style for organizations, he drew from his understanding of physical sciences to describe the social science reality of bringing change to an organization. Lewin described the existing state of an organization as that of ice, frozen and solid. Changing the system is possible, but change is not possible just by putting a square block of ice and forcing it into a round hole. The change cycle began by unfreezing the organization. Then change forces could be applied to the organization with minimal expense of time, energy and resources. He was also the first to identify that after the change, the organization must then be refrozen in the new shape to prevent the change from being lost. During the unfreeze phase, the factors opposed to and supporting change are roughly equal. In order to introduce change to this environment, or organization, the factors opposing the change must be minimized, and the factors supporting change must grow in size, strength, or number to create the change. During the refreeze phase, the factors supporting the new state of organizational rest establish equilibrium with new factors which resist further change. In the refreeze phase, these factors are most often new to the organization, and will help the organization define itself, for the foreseeable future. This approach to design management can help the organization, or the consultant who is leading the change, to understand the social, and internal process of change. Understanding that there are a number of forces which hold an organization in balance can help the organization understand that as they adopt a new organizational structure, a dis-equilibrium will exist, and that most the uncomfortable nature of the change can help motivate the people to find that new balance. In Law’s example, the removal of the desks, personal work spaces and permanent ‘territories’ helps facilitate the ‘unfreezing’ of the organization. His leadership and vision for the company, and his understanding of what he wanted the ‘refrozen’ state to look like kept the organization from going backward. Thus as an unfrozen organization, the group could move forward toward, motivated to begin the process of change. Another way to understand this change process, the process which design management must take into consideration is this. When an organization is in a state of high energy, be that an existing method of operation which is working for them, or a highly charged dysfunctional state, the process of change will be a difficult one to begin. The organization is immobilized, in lock down so to speak, and the first movements toward change are likely to produce denial, resistance and a level of dysfunction within the organization. The abrupt decrease in the performance of the organization can be unsettling for those involved if they are not prepared for it, as the researchers of the late 20th century documented. However, it is only systems which are pushed far from their equilibrium that become extremely sensitive and pliable to changes in their environments. (Therefore) An innovation or a new strategic direction can only occur if instability is first experienced. (Stacy, 1993: 172). This is a normal part of the change process, and one that is of maximum importance for the design management team to understand. Measuring Design Management Results If this approach to changing the organizational structure was not effective, the results experiences by Mr. Law and his new company would be the exception rather than the rule. However, in company after company, those who have set goals for the change process, understood the stages of the process, and then effectively worked the organization through the entire process without aborting the process during the unsettled phase; these organizations have risen to new levels of competitive advantage, and often become leaders in their industry. Another example is that of a plant manager, Dick Knowles who adapted this approach in order to address specific problems within his own area of the organization. Mr. Knowles plant had a terrible safety record. Environmentally hazardous emissions were high, and productivity was low. His head office was planning on shutting down this particular plant if there were no improvements. Knowles developed the image of a bowl, which was a safe container. He impressed this idea on his people, and let them know that within the ‘bowl’ his staff was both free to brainstorm and look for solutions over which they could take personal ownership. He also communicated the idea that within the bowl, there was safety. Within the bowl, the people would be protected and kept from outside forces which could steal the momentum from their ideas, thus giving the people freedom to experiment, and to create improvements. As the management leader, Knowles believed that it was his job to create this ‘bowl’ through communication of vision, company and individual departmental mission, principles, standards, and expectations. The leader is the only one who can create conditions that make it okay for the people to grow. When the leader takes on this transformational role, he often finds that after the initial disorganization as people search for new roles, an enormous energy gets released. People discover that they can make a personal difference. The meaning of their position within a larger organization begins to flow, and there is a higher level of discretionary energy. The results of Mr. Knowles ‘bowl’ experiment was that: 1. Injury rates were down by 95 percent. 2. Environmental emissions were reduced by more than 87 percent. 3. Uptime of the plant increased from an average of 65 percent to 90 to 95 percent. 4. Productivity increased by 45 percent. 5. Earnings per employee tripled. (Case study cited from McMillan, 2004) Conclusion Design management is required within the dynamically changing business marketplace. The competitive pressures, coupled with the new opportunities for communication, specialization and higher levels of business reactivity make it not only possible, but mandatory for today’s organization to become like the social order which surrounds it. During the Industrial revolution, entire societies become organized, and structured. The resulting cookie cutter approach to life helped bring order and economic prosperity. However, today’s business and post modern society is placing an ever higher level of value on individuality, and individualism. In the business organization, the manager who can tap into this culturally evolving desire will often help unleash potential within his or her people, which will allow the organization to rise to new levels of productivity, and profit. Works Cited Hargadon, A; Sutton, R. (1996) Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41. Lewin, K. ( 1935) A Dynamic theory of Personality. New York: McGraw Hill Lissack, M. (2002) The Interaction of Complexity and Management. London: Quorum Books McMillan, E. (2004) Complexity, Organizations and Change. London: Routledge. Osborn, Alex F. 1957 Applied Imagination, 2d ed. New York: Scribner. 1963 Applied Imagination, 3rd ed. New York: Scribner. Stacey, R. (1993) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics (1st eidtion.) London: Pitman Publishing. Read More