Jack makes a number of very good points which I agree weren't covered too
well in my original posting. So, here goes......
Jack wrote -
>Note that Phil's recipe starts and hinges on a adequate, accurate and
>timely delineation of organizational objectives in the first place. These
>must address not only the objectives relative to customers, suppliers,
>stakeholders as organizations but also the objectives relative to such
>concepts such as profitability, technology renewal, quality and balance of
>power. So the first question is: What is the likelihood that any company
>can articulate adequate, accurate and timely objectives?
From Phil:
I'm not sure that any company can articulate anything. Without sounding too
pithy on the subject, it is the people who articulate the objectives, not
the organisation. This means that the competencies of each staff member
should be such that they are capable of doing this - from both the point of
view of the staff members responsible for developing and maintaining the
objectives to those who are responsible for providing input into this
maintenance and on to those who are responsible for doing whatever it is
they do to make achievement of these objectives a reality.
Although a good, solid set of goals and objectives is the ideal, they don't
just appear - and certainly don't just appear in their final form (if they
ever could, would or should). They have to evolve. All goals and objectives
have to start somewhere (even the best Fortune 500 companies have emerging
goals and objectives) and in my experience if all staff are involved in
developing and achieving these goals and objectives then there is an
evolving and growing ownership that takes up the impetus and momentum of
achievements. However, as I said, this is really only best carried out by
people who have the competencies to do so.
I should point out here that many countries have different opinions on what
'competency' means. In the US there is a generally accepted definition of
'competency' that isn't shared by most other countries.
Competency, to many, means simply being capable of doing the job. But, the
modern definition of competency means also being able to do this job in a
variety of contexts and situations (including in a team environment,
against current or emerging organisational goals and objectives etc.),
being able to manage all of the little things that go to make up the larger
job (eg, planning and organising one's daily schedule, balancing
conflicting requirements etc), and being able to respond to irregularities
and breakdowns in routine (eg, rectifying problems and offering alternate
solutions, choosing between alternatives, accessing data and information to
solve problems etc). If a performance statement is written to cover the
competency required to fill a certain function then it will include all of
the above - not just a statement that says "Do the job". Thought I'd better
get that in so that we all know where my comments are coming from.
Also from Jack: Related questions are: Must this be done in advance of
"going matrix?" Must Machievelli be jailed in order for a matrix to
sustain or will simple denial suffice)?
From Phil:
I don't believe that a clear definition of the goals and objectives must be
completed before "going matrix". I think a useful goal or objective for a
project team might be to come up with clearer goals and objectives for the
mid- to long-term future. Another might be (as we've done with so many
organisations) 'develop a matrix structure'. Similarly, a 'competency' (see
above) for management at all levels would be to monitor and review goals
and objectives on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are either being
achieved or are updated to take into account new or emerging work
requirements. Obviously doing this means something different at senior
management than it does on the factory floor but both can have an equal
responsibility for ensuring that their share of the desired outcome is
achieved. For example, Joe Floorsweeper could have, as one of his/her
competencies, "Contribute to planning meetings in a timely and effective
way" (or whatever). Wherever it is practised this competency could be taken
to mean: contribute to staff suggestion schemes, speak up at planning
meetings, or simply to tap the supervisor on the shoulder and say "I think
we can do this better!" And he/she will be assessed on how well he/she does
this through the normal appraisal and feedback process in the organisation.
(If there is no process then senior management will be assessed on whether
or not they adopt and use such a process. If they don't then clearly they
are not as competent as they would wish.) Freda Manager, on the other hand,
would have as one of her competencies: "Suggestions are sought from all
staff on relevancy of existing goals and objectives and recommendations for
improvement" (or whatever). Another element of work on which a staff member
is assessed for competence.
So, goals and objectives can appear out of thin air (as they usually do)
but they don't necessarily have to be in their final, pristine form before
the organisation can begin to move ahead. We don't always need to know what
lays around the next corner before we set out on our trip. Simply reviewing
and increasing goals and objectives is, in my experience, one method of
moving ahead regardless of the point at which the goals start their life.
>Jack again:
>Secondly, it is not clear how the matrix, once formed, is capable of: 1)
>adapting to changes in its environment, 2) adapting to changes in the
>relative competencies of its incumbents (certainly learning is happening at
>differential rates in various locales) and 3) eschewing adaptation
>altogether in favor of innovation. So the second question is: How is
>adaptation accomplished? Is it accomplished "en-matix" or is there some
>other organizational form that must acccompany the matrix (as the pilot
>fish accompanies the whale)? Also, how does innovation (the opposite of
>"we've always done it that way and are world-class leaders because we are
>getting better at it at a rate of 14% annually, thank you very much").
>Innovation typically comes from without rather from within. So, if the
>only people we hire are the ones that best fit our analyzed needs
>(including their "team-ness" behavior), how do the pioneers get into the
>organization?
From Phil:
I think all of these questions can be answered along the lines of the
following: As I said above, it is not the matrix (or the organisation) that
makes things happen - it is the people. Matrixes don't move to counter new
or emerging threats - the people do. If the competencies of each function
within the matrix are written correctly (and, sadly, in my experience very
few are) then the people holding those functions will have responsibility
for adapting to change, adapting to changes in the competencies of
themselves (ie, the incumbents of the function), and becoming more
innovative (if I read the last question correctly).
One of the bad habits we have when discussing organisations is that we
actually speak only of the organisation (or matrix) as if it itself was
capable of change. It is the people that change and grow, not the
organisation. The latter is, after all, only a bunch of bricks and mortar -
anything that happens within it does so because of, and on behalf of, the
people. Why is it that so many business get sold with their "good will" and
not just their contents and customer lists? So, if we talk about the people
more than we talk about the organisation we are capable of seeing what
needs to be done to make change happen. IBM, wonderful organisation. But
look what people did to it not so long ago. Now that those people have
changed IBM is coming back. IBM the organisation did nothing - its people
have done all the work (both good and bad).
To me a matrix organisation is only really a way to describe how it is
structured in terms of functions (but, sadly, some of these can very easily
turn into little fiefdoms if the people let it happen). It doesn't require
the overlaying of any other structure to make things happen. It takes a
change in the way the competencies for each function within it are
described and the application of the skills and knowledge of the
individuals filling these functions.
>
>In terms of Prof. Adizes' Life Cycle Model, the matrix recipe given may
>work in the mid to late phases of an organization. Yet, Prof. Starkermann
>and others have shown the benefits of a matrix in any stage. Am I
>misreading the recipes or is there yet another form of matrix that should
>be acknowledged and promulgated?
>
Another problem I've seen over the years is that when one 'fad' isn't
working someone comes along with another to take its place. TQC, MBO et al
have lost their favour when those who knew how to make them happen moved
on. Matrix or any other kind of organisation must have commitment right
throughout to make it work. If not then everything will degenerate back to
what is most comfortable for the ethos and customs of the organisation -
usually a hierarchical structure in which the person with the loudest voice
is the boss and those who couldn't be bothered arguing (or are too scared
to argue) follow along. Sadly, those with the loudest voice are not always
at management level either - there are many organisations where the
employee representation is much stronger than the management leadership so
no matter what form of structure is in place, it will always be run in a
manner most likely to appease those with the most to lose.
I guess I was talking about the ideal but, don't we all aspire to 'the
ideal'? If every organisation was run well then we'd have nothing to
compare outselves to and nothing to dream about emulating. At the end of
the day, because people will be people it is really left up to us to keep
this dream alive.
Thanks for the thoughts Jack. It's a shame there are so many miles between
us because I'd love to kick over some of these concepts over a cup of coffee.
Regards
Phil Rutherford
------------------------------------
P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
Competency-based systems specialists
61 2 6230 4823
robnphil@ozemail.com.au