1. What problem is Geibel trying to solve?

What factors, over

time, have contributed to creating this problem at Disney ani-
mation?
• Geibel is trying to solve the lack of resources(budget or people) flow between silos even when it was obvious that moving
resources to other areas was in the best interest of the studio and change their organizational structure that was getting in
the way of their ability to react to the changes. When Geibel was promoted as the Director of Systems at Disney Animation,
Disney Animation had become more structured and hierarchical. Even though the work, which involved both high-tech
computer animation and creative storytelling, was cross-disciplinary and dynamic, it wasn’t easy to work across departments
to innovate. So, he wanted to improve the flow and efficiency of the organization’s increasingly technical and creative work.
• First, the performance evaluation system of Disney animation has contributed to creating this problem. More specifically,
mangers were being judged by how effective their silos were performing. If a manger gave away resources to another silo,
they would have fewer resources to accomplish their goals. This caused a mind-set for managers to hoard and protect these
resources throughout the year. The competition for resources became extremely apparent during budget season when man-
agers would fight with one another to obtain the most resources they could for the goals they set out for the upcoming
years. It wasn’t just mangers who felt the boundaries between groups. Jim Bette, a systems engineer, explained, “It was very
siloed, as in ‘this is our space, that is yours.’”
• Second, the previous structure, which enabled the team members to work only in the areas supervised by their managers
has contributed to the problem. Even if the staff has passion, skills and can contribute to many different areas across the
organization, they had to pick one of these skills and be a part of only one team instead of leveraging all of them.
• Third, the location of managers and team members contributed to the problem. Prior to 2010, managers coordinated
projects from their upstair offices with doors, which were located away from their staff. This weakened the communication of
managers in the group. Also, because the distance between members was physically remote, it wasn’t easy to create the
real-time, informal communication. And meetings were held one-on-one with group members, and every few weeks the en-
tire group met in a formal conference room. Due to the psychological effect of a large formal conference room, people are
programmed to walk in and stay quiet and listen to the person sitting at the head of the table and shut down.
2. What do you think of Geibel and Johnson’s approach to change?
Why did they take this approach?
•I highly regard their organizational development model, but I think it still has a problems. Their approach to change makes change one by one, that is they test the
theories that are proved effective in enhancing the organization in a desirable way one at a time. They have taken this approach so that they can know whether the
method worked or not, observe how it affects the system, gauge its impact, learn, generate another theory, debate the results, and give a feedback-reinforcing it or
trying something else. I think the good part of their approach is whether the method matched with their organization or not, it is after all the process to success. Al -
though the method didn’t work in their organization, that’s still fine because they learned a lesson from their failure. But this approach still has a problem. According
to Emile Durkheim’s functionalism theory, society is a system of interrelated parts where no one part can function without the other and the function of the parts is
the function of society. If any one part changes, it has an impact on society. Then let’s think about this situation. In the status quo, theory A proved to be effective.
Accordingly, the organization adopted theory A. And then the situation changed, i.e., the member of the group change, and in this changed situation, theory A could
be proved ineffective. So, the verification of the theory must be held not just one time, but quiet frequently. And their approach is based on principles of the scientific
method. For example, to determine the number of people in small, autonomous teams, they engaged in a series of experiment setting the number of people in a
group as a manipulated variable, and controlling all the other factors such as structure, composition, etc. Since the performance of the group is related to psychologi -
cal factor, their approach can be regarded as subjective, but as they are using scientific method, it is perceived reliable and objective.
•Now, let’s think about which changes were made to solve the problem regarding their problem cognition which we discussed at question 1.
•First, they began to selectively assign employees to various “specialty” teams, each team consisting of two to six people. They took this approach after engaging in a
series of experiment. The experimental result showed that in the jumpfrom six to seven participants the quality of the discussion drastically dropped and the inflow of
ideas between people occurred. So, to activate the communication in business meetings, they restricted the number of members per team.
•Second, they consisted each team of a lead and several primanry and secondary members. Under this composition, whenever change of the organization was needed
to respond to technological advance, a new team was formed and accordingly a new team lead position was created. As they build new teams, they staff them with
the people with the best ideas, regardless of their tites and hierarchy. This weakened the hierarchical structure, making a shift from a vertical structure to a horizontal
structure, and motivated the technical individuals offering them the opportunity to move up. Under this horizontal structure, people could not undervalue or overvalue
ideas based on titile of the person with the idea. Also, because the team had both primary and secondary members, employees could play a primary role on one
team and had the option of playing secondary roles for any number of teams. This flexibility contributed to blurring the line between silos.
•Third, they remodelded individual offices into group work spaces. The physical proximity proved to aid in the experimentation process as well as to create the real-
time, informal communication.
•Lastly, Geibel and Johnson asked each team to create a yearly road map for their goals and the road maps were broadcasted to the entire Systems team. Anyone who
disagreed could talk to that team lead. Additionally, Geibel and Johnson created a master calendar to show major milestones throughout the year. This calendar was
situated on two large whiteboards in a main hallway. Each team used different colored Post-it notes to show major events. If something changed, team memers would
walk out to the main hallway, remove the Post-it note , and replace it with a new one. This created a very collaborative environment where employees feel empowered
that they can make decisions that will impact the studio.
3. What led this structure to be effective at Disney Animation? How
does research theory support this approach?
• Basically, as an aid in their approach to change, a formal procedure known as organizational behavior modification, or OB Mod, is used. The basic goal of OB Mod, which some refer to as performance management, is to imrove task performance through positive reinforcement of desir-
able behaviors and elimination of reinforcers that support undesirable behaviors. Research has been generally supportive of OB Mod. One study found that PIGS(positive, immediate, graphic, and specific) feedback, coupled with social reinforcement for desired behavior(for example,
praise, attention, compliments), improved the delivery of quality service by tellers in a bank. Another study found that feedback coupled social reinforcement and time off helped overcome significant performance problems among municipal workers. In Russia, a study determined that
feedback and social reinforcement improved the quality of fabric produced by textile workers. Then what led OB Mod to be effective at Disney animation? OB Mod research has found that performance improvements for jobs that are complex and nonroutine, such as those found in
some service organinzations are 13 percent on average. Disney Animation is driven by the capability of 900 highly skilled artiests, engineers, and scientists telling stories through words, music, and images with the most technologically advanced tools in the world. Their jobs are based on
deep, rich knowledge and on skills that can take months or years to develop. Therefore, Disney Animation belongs to the service organization and an average performance gain of 13 percent is expected.
• Now, let’s see what attributed to the success of their change which we discussed at question 2 by examining some research theories.
• First, there is no one ideal number of team members for all situations. Many studies have examined the relationship of team size and team performance, and two lines of thought have emerged. The first suggests that the relationship between team size and team performance is shaped
like an inverted U. Thus, as teams become larger, thediversity of skills, talents, ideas, and individual associate inputs into the task is greater, leading to improved performance. However, as the number of team members increases, the need for cooperation and coordination also increases.
At some point, the effort that goes into managing the team will outweigh the benefits of having more members, and team peformance will begin to decline. Other researchers, however, have found that performance increases linearly with team size awithout ever showing a downturn.
This linear relatonship most likely results when a team avoids the problems associated with too many members, such as social loafing, poor coordination, and worsening communication. Thus, the relationship between team size and team performance depends on other factors, such as
the task or the environment. Disney Animation is following the inverted U pattern.
• Second, even if the world is based on titles and hierarchy, with their new organization, they’ve started to break down those walls. Specifically, the creation of the team lead position offered technical individuals the opportunity to move up within the company. Technical team leads en-
joiyed the same status and compensation as the traditional “personnel” managers. Engineer Jim Bette described how this cahnge affected his career growth motivation: Now I feel like you don’t have to be in management to move up-you’re all more one the same playing field; it’s more
based on what you bring to the table. You don’t have to be a manager; you can be a tecnical lead, and thechnical leads are now considered the top of the organization. Why this elimination of hierarch became effective can be explained by J. Stacey Adams’ equity theory. According to
this theory, motivation is based on a person’s assessment of the ratio of the outcomes or rewards (pay, status) he receives for input on the job (effort, skills) compared with the same ratio for a comparison other, frequently a co-worker. Thus is assessing equity, the person makes the fol-
lowing comparision:

𝑀 𝑦 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑐 𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠 𝑂𝑡 ℎ𝑒 𝑟 ' 𝑠 𝑂𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑠

vs .
• After making the comparison, the person forms equity perceptions. Based on the perceptions of equity or the lack of it, people make choices about the action to take(e.g., how much effort to exert to perform the task). Equity exists when the person’s ratio of outcomes to inputs is equal
to that of the other person, and inequity exists when the ratios are not equal. Inequity may result when one person is paid more than the other for the same input or when one person provides less input for the same pay. Perceptions of equity have several effects in the workplace. Feel-

𝑀 𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑝 𝑢𝑡 𝑠 𝑂𝑡 ℎ𝑒 𝑟 ' 𝑠 𝐼 𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑠

ings of equity are related to outcome satisfaction and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Organizational citizenship behavior refers to an associate’s willingness to engage in organizationally important behaviors that go beyond pre-
scribed job duties, such as helping coworkers with their work or expending extra effort to bring positive publicity to the organization. Associates’ motivation is highly important in all types of organizations including Disney Animation, because the peformance of an organization depends
on the collective performance of individual associates. In general, associates who have greater motivation peform at higher levels. In turn, associates’ actions on the job helps to implement the organization’s strategy.
• Third, social facilitation accounts for the efficiency of the sharing environment. In the late 1890s, Norman Triplett, a bicyclist and early social scientist, noticed that cyclists performed better racing against others than when they were timed cycling alone. This effect-that is when the pres-
cence of others improves individual performance-has been termed the social facilitation effect. Social facilitation suggests that teamwork can lead to increased performance because others are present. Several reasons for the social facilitation effect have been suggested. One is that the
prescence of human beings creates general arousal in other human beings. This general arousal then leads to better performance. Another explanation is that the presence of others arouses evaluation apprehension, so that people perform better because they think they are being evalu-
ated.
• Lastly, all-channel connected communication network contributed to solving the problem. Networks serve various purposes in organizations; among other things they can be used to regulate behavior, promote innovation, integrate activities, and inform and instruct group members. In
decentralized networks, many people or units can communicate with many others. The all-channel communication network is an example. Research has shown that a person’s position in the network can affect personal satisfaction. Individuals in more central position in the network tend
to be more satisfied. The most central position is the one that can communicate with all members with the fewest number of links. Because individuals in the all-channel network are equally central, this network tend to produce higher levels of total member satisfaction.
4. What is your assessment of the new team structure – i.e., the new
structure for Disney Animation’s systems group? What are its strengths
and weaknesses? Is this the right structure for the work the group does?
Why or why not?
• Disney Animation is considering using different office layouts to optimize what’s best for each team or individual. Removing the status element, they con -
sider each person’s personality traits such as extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, emotional stability, and agreeableness. According to
the social facilitation effect, it seems to occur only when people are performing well-learned, simple, or familiar tasks. The presence of others can actually
decrease performance on tasks that are complex or unfamiliar. For example, someone who is not accustomed to giving speeches is likely to perform more
poorly when speaking in front of others than she would if she were practicing alone. The strength of this new team structure is that they use insights into
personalities as important clues about how a peroson will act in the workplace. Many organizations just ignore individual traits to save money and energy,
and make all employees work in cubicles. This general approach, of course, decreases the individual and finally organizational performance. And the weak -
ness is even if the person is highly extrovert and get the most of his(her) abilities in sharing environment, some tasks still require private place undisturbed
from any. Just placing introverted into a private office, and extroverted into a shared office doesn’t seem like the right structure. I think the flexibility and
mobility is required. Make both private offices and shared offices, and make them reserve a space they want to work day by day.
• Overall, research has found an average performance gain of 17 percent when OB Mod was explicitly used. OB Mod research reveals that performance im-
provements tend to be greater in manufacturing organizations(33percent on average) than in service organizations(13percent on average). This difference
across types of organizations highlights a weakness of the OB mod approach. For jobs that are complex and nonroutine, such as Disney Animation, OB Mod
tends to be less effective. In complex jobs, where excellent performance in core job areas is based on deep, rich knowledge and on skills that can take
months of years to develop, short-term interventions based on the simple principles of operant conditioning and social learning may not yield particularly
strong performance gains. For organizations seeking to develop their human capital for competitive advantage, this limitation must be considered. Although
performance improvent is lower than average, anyway the method gives us gains, that could be a strength. But, the presence of its substitute could be a
weakness. In addition, limited opportunities to observe the consequences of an action and unclear feedback make learning from experience more difficult. In
situations that are not directly experienced very often, learning from people who have more experience is crucial. In situations characterized by unclear feed -
back, talking with others, using simulations, and experimenting with varios actions can be effective strategies for proper learning.
• Informal communication, otherwise known as “the grapevine” became common. The benefit of informal communication is that it involves spontaneous inter -
action and managers may find that the informal system enables them to reach more members than the formal one. Another benefit of informal communica-
tion is that it can help to build solidarityy and friendship among associates. The downside of informal communication networks is rumors and gossip. I think
this is the right structure for Disney Animation. Their group consists of under six people, not so many. So, I guess generally team members really like each
other and enjoy spending time together under same interest. Assuming this interpersonally cohesive environment, with no worries about rumor or gossiping
each other, I think informal communication channel will be the most exploited way.
5. Would this structure work in your organization? Why or why not? In
what environments is this structure best suited?
• I’m recently working with my team project in marketing class. And the project is about making our brand. We
are almost the same age and everyone in this group have equal rights. Members of our team were quite com-
fortable with each other, even though we don’t meet personally outside. The first assignment of our group was
to make both target persona template and value proposition template. In Disney Animation, it was not uncom-
mon for someone out of the blue to say, “I have an idea. Let’s meet.” Next thing, members were sitting on
couches in a common space, marking up whiteboards. This informal communication is not suited for our group
because we separately have other things to do, that is this project is not always the priority among our works
or appointments. So, in order to make our project progress, prior confirming the meeting time is essential be-
fore one or a few weeks prior to the meeting time. I think this informal communication works best in groups
whose members have high task cohesion and high interpersonal cohesion. Interpersonal cohesion is the team
members’ liking or attraction to other team members. Task cohesion is team members’ attraction and commit-
ment to the tasks and goals of the team. Team cohesion is an important criterion because research indicates
that cohesion is positively related to team performance outcomes and viability. We should note, however, that
too much cohesion can lead to dysfunctional team performance, such as groupthink. Cohesive teams are likely
to have the highest performance when there is task cohesion. When there is only interpersonal cohesion, and
performance goals are low, cohesiveness will lead to poor performance. In other words, if the team members
really like each other and enjoy spending time together, but are not committed to their organizational tasks and
goals, they will perform worse than if they were not interpersonally cohesive.