Re: Organizational integration LO949

NDICKOVE (NDICKOVER@dc.lld.com)
Wed, 26 Apr 1995 08:35:56 EST

Replying to LO932 --

> My agency is conducting an organizational analysis as a prelude
> to restructuring...For the sake of clarity, I've drawn below a simple
> org. chart to help us along.

One of the interesting things about shared models is that people in
the organization tend to act on and believe their validity. If your
organization (as many do) sees itself primarily in terms of a
traditional organizational chart, you will always have a hard time
integrating horizontally. An organization chart is only designed to
show vertical communication and control channels, it does not notice
horizontal communication. One aspect of this effort which may aid
you is to use a modeling methodology to represent your organization
which explicitly acknowledges horizontal communication.

> It appears to me that organizations are structured to promote
> cooperation within major divisions (vertical integration), but
> that difficulties arise when elements within one division need to
> work with elements of other divisions (horizontally). The
> challenge in any organization is to build a management system - a
> set of interconnected process that collectively promote the
> effective and efficient achievement of the organization's mission
> - that promotes cooperation in both directions...

> How can an organization be set up to promote both vertical and
> horizontal integration?

As I understand it, the purpose of vertical communication is to
manage complexity from a standpoint of maintaining control from the
top. If your organization wants to "promote" horizontal
communication and integration, in essence, your organization will be
attempting to manage complexity in the lower levels of the
hierarchy. This will have implications in the way your current
management operates. If individual employees are communicating
across current division, the nature of your organizational
accountability will change. This will obviously have serious
implications to your managers' job descriptions; most will not like
this change.

The process change/improvement literature will say that to have
horizontal communication, you are really looking at defragmenting
you production and business processes, that is, what you as an
organization produce, and how you as an organization manage your
production. Most organizations manage work based on their functions
(accounting dept., delivery dept, marketing dept, etc.). The process
change literature essentially says that if you want to promote
horizontal communication, you should be organizing your work around
your end to end processes. Thomas Davenport's book, "Process
Innovation: Reengineering the workplace through information
technology" (1993) provides an in-depth overview of this technique,
including many possible pitfalls.

This still does not address the issue of getting your people to
accept this change. That your company's vision is only from your
leaders, and is not shared (or known?) indicates that the employees
are not partners or stakeholders. I still struggle with how to
develop a group oriented process for change when there is a distinct
possibility to future layoffs. This seems to be at odds in
developing a learning organization. There are many in this group
better able to answer how best to deal with defensive routines and
the like, so on this issue, I'll hang-up and listen.

> I'd like to know, first,
> what people think about the idea that horizontal integration is
> more difficult than vertical; and second, whether there are models
> of organizations that might help determine an approach to working
> through this on a practical level.
>

If your organization sees itself in terms of vertical communication
lines, than I would agree with you that it will see horizontal
communication as more difficult. I am in a much smaller
organization, in which many of the problems associated with larger
organizations do not yet exist. We do not have much in the way of
vertical communication but have great horizontal communication, and
are looking into ways of enhancing it. We have never used the word
"empowerment," but due to our size (around 60) and our rate of
growth, we are very empowered. We create shared visions and as a
group, attempt to determine how best to prepare for the future. Our
manager's job (not multiple, but singular) is more of a coordination
role; each individual employee is responsible for customer interface,
producing outputs, etc. Our VP, President, and COO (who currently are
right down the hall from me) spend most of their time getting new
business. Unfortunately, we are not without defensive routines, and
I often worry that as we get larger, this organization certainly has
the potential of taking on the characteristics you have described.

As to your second question, there are many modeling methodologies
for working through this on a practical level. Before determining
which is best, you as an organization may need to spend some time on
determining from what perspective you will like to see this change
effort, and specifically what will its purpose be. This will aid in
determining the most appropriate modeling methodology to employ.

> I'm not sure this is clear. Being in the middle of the issue,
> it's hard to see through my own filters.

> David E. Birren

Well said. You've got a difficult problem,

Noel Dickover
--> Sig inserted by Host. Please sign your messages, Thanks! <--
From: "NDICKOVE" <NDICKOVER@dc.lld.com>