• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
In the past, businesses were organized andstructured in a way that would make it difficultfor them to survive in the 1990s. The commoncharacteristics included: a strict hierarchy of authority, centralized decision making, verticalcommunication, and a comprehensive set of rules. There was very little delegation and desti-tute employee involvement. Successful organi-zations today are embarking on a new approachcentered on teamwork. It entails the formationof empowered teams to replace the numerouslayers in the hierarchy of authority. This newphilosophy has allowed organizations facingendurance problems to survive the restructuringprocess.Harrison and Pratt[1, p. 22], determined thatthere are four groups of teams which create thetransformation of an organization. They are asfollows: executive steering committee, processevaluation committee, line management, andconsultants/facilitators. Each group is heldaccountable and has a precisely determined partto play in organizational restructuring. The firstteam to start the ball rolling is the executivesteering committee (ESC); it composes theorganization’s vision, goals, and objectives. Thesecond team, the process evaluation team(PET), does a process appraisal; it creates theoperation and layout for constructive develop-ment. This team can create other teams toresearch specific areas of potential problems orpotential opportunity. Then, the resources aremade available and modifications are actualizedby those managers who are in line positions.The line positions are where the actual changesoccur and therefore are the most difficult. Forthis reason it is crucial that line personnel are inagreement with all phases of the plan. In addi-tion, outside expertise can be advisable where afresh look is needed to overcome persistentoutdated views.Downsizing or delayering does not in and of itself change the rate of productivity. Because of this, companies are changing the structure of their organizations to eliminate the traditionallevels of hierarchy; eliminating boundariescreated by departments or functions. In its finalform, the horizontal organization might bemade up of a small group of senior executiveswho are responsible for finances and humanresources. The rest of the corporation “workstogether in multi-disciplinary teams that
36
Empowerment for theyear 2000 and beyond
 Nick Nykodym,Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner 
The authorsNick Nykodym
is Professor of Management;
Sonny S. Ariss
is Associate Professor;
Jack L. Simonetti
is Professor of Management and former Chair of the Management Develop-ment; and
Jean Plotner
is Research Associate, all at theUniversity of Toledo, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
Analyzes recent thought relating to the forced restructuringof businesses. In general, businesses are unable to competein the new global environment in their present state becauseof worldwide competition; national changes involvingmergers, bank failures and company takeovers. Companieswhich can incorporate a team philosophy into their organiza-tions will have a better chance of surviving in the year 2000.Details the new and more stringent requirements that areplaced on leadership and the empowerment of teamsthrough leadership. Focusses on information as to how tochoose the right leadership and teams. Uses significantexamples of businesses which have successfully restructuredto illustrate the importance of fostering a leadership stylewhich will advocate teamwork.
Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · pp. 36–42© MCBUniversity Press · ISSN 0968-4891
 
perform core processes, such as product devel-opment or sales generation”[2, p. 77]. Thisfocus on process eliminates the layers of posi-tions; and improves production and cutsexpenses.
Changing to a horizontal structure can becomplicated
Eliminating the neatly arranged positions peoplehave become accustomed to can be the ultimatechallenge. Even outlining the processes of anorganization can be complex and terribly con-fusing. The manager has the role of convincingpeople to think comprehensively and eliminatetheir familiar advertising, investing, or manu-facturing hats. “This is the hardest damn thingto do”, says Terry M. Ennis, who heads up agroup to help Du Pont’s businesses “organizealong horizontal lines”[2, p. 78]. People whohave spent their lives climbing the corporateladder find it very unsettling and difficult tomake the transformation. These people are usedto having everyone in their place and respon-sible for their own tasks. It is an achievement toobtain cooperation between the separatedepartments. It is also important to note thatemployees who are task oriented and depart-mentalized cannot see the organizational needsas a whole.In the 1960s and 1970s, it was discoveredthat task orientation did not work well so matrixteams were created, leaving the levels hierarchyin tact. That was a partial fix for then. Execu-tives are forced to find different solutions todaybecause the rules for competing have beenaltered and they have been forced into an accel-erated global market. Managers must compre-hend what their customers require and do acomplete examination of what it will take to gainpotential customers. At this point, an organiza-tion can begin to recognize its most importantcore processes to achieve its objectives – “Whether they are lowering costs by 30 percentor developing new products in half the time itnormally requires”[2, p. 78]. The ultimate ideais, as Du Pont’s Terry Ennis puts it: “Our goal isto get everyone focussed on the business as asystem in which the functions are seamless”[2,p. 79].
Changing views for leadership
People with the ability to lead others successful-ly are rarely recognized before the fact. In otherwords, successful leadership is not usuallypredictable. “An effective leader, like a success-ful artist, must love and be profoundly commit-ted to a vision”[3, p. 18]. The leaders of todaywho will still be here for the year 2000 are thosewith vision; who have the ability to communi-cate that vision to others; and, who have themoral authority and credibility so that otherswill follow where they lead. Principles andvalues must not only be believed by leaders, buttheir actions must follow their beliefs. Theyshould also be able to follow through with deci-sions that support their values and beliefs. Theirvisions must be meaningful and yet expandableby the other members of their teams. The lead-ers must have the ability to communicate theirvisions to their team members and gain theirsupport.
‘…Leaders must recognize the human need forrecognition in other people and have thewelfare of other people on their minds…’
Innovation and imagination should be keywordsby which the teams do their brainstorming.Furthermore, leaders must be able to motivateothers to do their best for the organization. Inaddition, leaders must have the ability to givecredit to others. Likewise, when a decision goeswrong, they must be willing to take the blameand when it goes right, they must be willing togive the credit. Therefore, leaders must recog-nize the human need for recognition in otherpeople. Hence, leaders must have the welfare of other people on their minds and not their ownwelfare.Survival for leaders means that they will nolonger be the authoritarian leaders of yesterday;instead, they will be the team members of tomorrow. This is a hefty criterion for the lead-ers of today who still want to be leaders in theyear 2000[3]. According to Sabo[4] awardwinning leaders realize that the public comesfirst. “It’s so fundamental, yet a lot of people donot keep it in the forefront of their efforts. Theyforget who they are working for”, says Bell,president emeritus of the American Advertising
37
Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner 
Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
 
Federation, Washington, DC, and currentlypresident of AAF’s foundation. Equally interest-ing, Kathryn E. Johnson, president and chief executive officer of Western Hospitals and arecipient of the 1993 Key Award, claims that“Her team of staff and volunteers spent anumber of years repositioning the Health CareForum…to focus on creating healthier commu-nities rather than on addressing illness-basedcare”. They see themselves as “More of anaction-oriented think tank…[4, p. 124]. She toorecognizes her changing role for survival andsuccess in the 1990s.Charlotte St Martin, who chaired ASAE in1990-1991, says they worked a “back to thefuture” planning model. Members envisionedthe ideal future for their organization, and thenthey worked backward to create it”[4, p. 125].She says that “We also have to find ways toengage emerging leaders, who come fromincreasingly diverse backgrounds”[4, p. 125]. Inaddition, she says that she believes in multi-generational input; that is, she wants to hearfrom team members at every level of the organi-zation. According to George D. Kirkland, presi-dent of the Los Angeles Convention & VisitorsBureau since 1990, “Successful managementhas its roots in the willingness to look for what isbest in other people…”[4, p. 124]. Obviously,the people already at the top see the changingroles of leaders very clearly and are adaptingthemselves to accommodate those changes.
Choosing the right team members
Part of the process of restructuring into teams isto be able to identify the personalities of themanagers you employ. According to Pitcher[5],they are either technocrat, artist or craftsman.“Technocrats are described by their peers andcolleagues as controlled, conservative, serious,analytical, no-nonsense, intense, determined,cerebral, methodical and meticulous”[5, p. 48].Taken separately these terms could be a virtue;but when they are found in one person – youcan have trouble. Basically, technocrats prefer tothrow out the old, including employees, andbring in the new. “Give technocrats ultimateauthority and he or she will drive out everythingelse”[5, p. 50]. Most of today’s businesses arerun by technocrats who have surrounded them-selves with other technocrats. They focus onshort-term planning with immediate profits asthe main goal making true restructuring of theorganizational processes impossible. Bottomline, technocrats must be recognized so they canbe placed in benign positions where their talentsare enhanced, but without the power to removeor add team members. It is important to notetechnocrats are very important to the organiza-tional structure, as long as their power is keptin check. Today, a company comprising toomany technocrats is a company headed fortrouble.Next, we have the artists. The artist’s peersand colleagues describe them as “bold, daring,exciting, volatile, intuitive, entrepreneurial,inspiring, imaginative, unpredictable andfunny”[5, p. 49]. They believe in convincing thepeople around them to buy into their visionsand dreams; they never are middle of the roadwith their opinions; and people are either clear-cut friends or clear-cut enemies of the artists.The artists start off very ambiguous, but theirplans become clear through their activation. If at all possible, you certainly want at least oneartist on every team. The companies that recog-nize the artists for their visions and dreams willbe successful in restructuring the organizationalprocesses. At this point in time, however, theartists are losing out to the technocrats. Thisdoes not mean doom and gloom for these com-panies. It does mean restructuring of staff within them. More often than not, the artists arestill there; they are simply not in positions of power where their dreams and visions can bebrought to light. The companies which have thewherewithal to restructure their staff so theirartists’ visions and dreams can become realitieswill have a greater chance of survival to see theyear 2000.Last but not least, we have the craftsmen.These people tend to stay employed at one placefor a very long time. Consequently, they knowwhat took place many years ago and care verymuch about what takes place presently and wellinto the future. They have the experience, loyal-ty, assurance, continuity, and organizationaladhesive that generates trust, respect, and com-mitment among their peers. Employees will takethe long range view and make sacrifices after thecraftsmen enlighten them by explaining that thesacrifices are for the good of the company andnot just money placed into specific pockets.
38
Empowerment for the year 2000 and beyond
Nick Nykodym, Sonny S. Ariss, Jack L. Simonetti and Jean Plotner 
Empowerment in OrganizationsVolume 3 · Number 4 · 1995 · 36–42
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...