For many years, whoever writes this has heard from many university professionals, in positions of Management or Management in public and private organizations, expressions such as: "… It is necessary to restructure our company… We need to modernize ourselves", "we have problems… we must restructure our business or we will sink "; "Inefficiency and corruption are killing us… we have to undertake a restructuring in the Ministry…". I do not doubt that some of these statements, and even exclamations, reflected a certain "idea" about what the leaders of the world are proposing. What is fundamental, the problem, is whether, in effect, who will be the true protagonists and "users" of these "restructurings", as the case may be, are clearly clear and, therefore,enthusiastically and even unconditionally accept and adhere to such a proposal, with its implications and its real causes and consequences.
More than thirty years of professional activity spread over various public sector institutions and many other private companies, as a planner, director or manager and as an advisor and consultant, in addition to some twenty-five years of parallel activity as a university professor and researcher, should be little less than enough to have seen and experienced directly and indirectly more than one "restructuring" (thus, in quotation marks) in a purported search for lost organizational quality and efficiency; so I will share with all my colleagues, colleagues and compatriots in general - because we are all concerned with a "restructuring" - some considerations about this exciting "panacea", today more than ever so "fashionable" in our country, more when it joins to our jargon the concept, and problem,of globalization due to its impact on the work of companies that seek to compete successfully both in the national market and internationally, and in general in all State organizations: Ministries, autonomous Institutes and other decentralized entities, in their search for greater efficiency, efficacy and legitimacy before Venezuelan society as a whole.
It is necessary first of all to address some conceptual aspects that are of great importance in order to reach, at a certain rate, what we want to achieve: to amply demonstrate that restructuring is not the same as reorganizing, and thereby contribute to a better understanding of such a complex and controversial process., which from the outset should give us the idea of Organizational change and, consequently, of ORGANIZATIONAL MODERNIZATION. We will start with some "tips":
- A private company, any public institution, a high school or a small school, a Ministry such as Education, for example; any social club or the Los Leones del Caracas baseball team are organizations. More than organizations, they are "complex living systems." They are also conceived as social systems.
- An Organization can also be defined as "the planned coordination of the activities of a group of people to seek the achievement of an explicit and common objective or purpose, through the division of labor and functions, and through a hierarchy of authority and responsibility". As it can be deduced, this concept certainly fits in any institution with social ends or in lucrative companies.
- An Organization, in effect, is also a System. It must be considered as a System in that it is - in its simplest concept - a set of interdependent parts that work as a whole to achieve some purpose. Note that there is a great similarity with the previous concept.
- So: an Organization, as a Living System, is also open in that it interacts permanently and is conditioned to a greater or lesser degree by multiple factors that act in the environment, that is, the environment outside it, with its people and organizations, with or without direct link with it.
- In systemic terms: a complex living system is, then, an Organization. More examples: in Venezuela, the INCE, the SENIAT, the Veterans Soccer League or any public or private school; in the international context, IBM, in addition to those mentioned above; but all, without exception, are examples of systems, in general. And as such, as systems in their most basic definition, a flower, a lizard, a cell, an elephant, a colony of ants or bees, our circulatory system, etc. can also be analyzed, inasmuch as such examples respond to the simplest definition that we pointed out previously. But, attention, let's focus on:
- Organizations like the ones we cited in the previous aspect, excluding the examples that refer to beings from nature, are social systems and, consequently, they are Complex Systems, since in them many highly complex subsystems (components) interact, such as they are individuals. Highly complex because: "each head (each individual) is a world" (… And if it is not so!) According to the popular saying anywhere in the world. By the way, it is also a system, a "Great System", the planet where we live and, incidentally, we are working to finish it, and so is the Solar System to which it belongs.
- We have also concluded, up to this point, that an organization is not necessarily a system "for its own sake", just as a flower could be conceived or not. It is, rather, a conception that we can have about something, the way we see and analyze that something. We are talking about a systemic approach, also Systemic Thinking or a methodical way of thinking that has revolutionized the areas of physics and biology, first, and then it has been applied in the field of administration, thanks to the main cultivator of General Systems Theory, Ludwin Von Bertalanffi.
- Thus, to fully understand the operation (functioning) of an administrative unit, or an entity, it must be conceived as a System, that is, we repeat, as a set of interdependent parts that work as a whole to achieve one or more objectives.. In such a way that, according to the aforementioned theory, to fully understand how the human body works, for example, the functions, inputs and products of its interdependent parts must first be understood, also systems or subsystems (brain, heart, kidneys, eyes, circulatory system, etc.); which is perfectly applicable to the organizations we have been talking about.
We are clear, then, that an Organization, whatever its purpose: profit or rendering a service of a social nature, is a Complex Living System, and given such a concept we can analyze and understand it better, even more: we can change it, improve it, modernize it and of course create it. It is a matter of keeping clearly in mind, at least: the constitution of its parts; their interrelation; its inputs, processes and products, and its reason for being. This theoretical base is the one that bases Strategic Thinking, and therefore, the misunderstood methodology of Strategic Planning, so useful and necessary for every good leader, be it a business Manager, a political actor, a Director of Public Administration, a supervisor, a teacher, etc., who is called to be the individual who best understands your organization,the system as a whole, and the environment where it operates.
Professor Juranovic (Universidad Simón Bolivar), a great student of systems and social organizations, tells us about ten (10) fundamental ideas present in every living system (simple and complex) and that every planner of social systems (leaders "truth-truth" are planners, it should not be forgotten) you must consider when wanting to intervene successfully on such systems or organizations. These fundamental ideas or Conceptual Foundations are:
1. Objectives; 2. Structure; 3. Functions; 4. Rules; 5. Environment; 6. Input (Imput); 7. Processes; 8. Products (Output); 9. Retro information and; 10. Results.
In the next installment, following pages of this Internet version, we will analyze these fundamental ideas, as well as other approaches and conceptions that will invariably lead us to clearly differentiate between the concepts of Restructuring and Reorganization and to be able to deduce their close connection with any implementation process. of programs of organizational change - understood: MODERNIZATION - and consequently of improvement of the quality, efficiency and productivity of the organization, and the vital importance of this for those who serve as MANAGERS and, in general, for those who work in them with legitimate intentions to progress and advance the collective that makes up the organization.
Re-structuring is not the same as…
… Re-organize (Part II)
In the previous installment we have referred to the ten (10) fundamental ideas or foundations (according to Mr. Juranovic) that are present in every living system: animals, plants, man, or in every social organization: be a country, a ministry or a private company, whatever its size, among countless examples. We also pointed out that anyone who intends to plan, that is to say: create or change (UNDERSTAND: IMPROVE, MODERNIZE) such organizations, must keep them in mind for reflection and prior analysis. Let's see what we are talking about:
- 1. OBJECTIVE: Every system (and let's not forget it: every organization that boasts of being one) exists to fulfill an objective or purpose. It has, therefore, a reason for being, a "why". Like an animal or plant cell, to which the objective has been given by nature; Likewise, SENIAT, PDVSA, or a humble rural medicine company, these organizations which, by "the convenience of the men" who devised them, designed them, were given an Objective, or Mission, to be permanently accomplished. Do all of us, in our organizations, fully know what the Mission is and the objectives that we must achieve? Is this really the Mission that corresponds to us today, in terms of its scope and the real demands of the environment? feasible and necessary to achieve the objectives - and goals - set within the framework of such Mission?Do we all share them and commit to fulfill them?
- 2. STRUCTURE: Every system is made up of certain resources that interact following the principles of specialization (division of labor) and hierarchy. "The most valuable resource of organizations is (nothing more and nothing less…) the Human Resource": this is how the profuse modern theory about administration and organizations says, and it is the first thing they "scrape" (our businessmen, managers, ministers and directors when “the ship is in water”). Many of our organizations (and also-still from other parts of the world), particularly the public ones and not a few private ones, show with great pride their structure as the typical pyramid of «Cajitas», where the ones above (and who feel their "Owners") represent those who "rule" and, sequentially, those below "only obey." By the way,the designers of such a "structure" or "structural organization chart", as it is usually called, take care to append to the well-known "little drawing" some microscopic letters such as: "Warning, smoking has been determined to be harmful to your health… "And which actually says, almost solemnly:" it does not indicate hierarchy ", but in traditional practice it is generally interpreted as the pyramid or chain of command: those of" above "- those who are in the" boxes "above - they are the ones who have a "pumpá" type hat and, consequently, they are the "bosses", "the most", the best when not, "the only ones". They are followed further down by another row of boxes (in greater numbers than those at the "tip") where are those who do not have "pumpá", but "have heads" (and, of course, some brain) and; Finally,a row of little boxes in the rows below where those who have neither hat nor head are represented, who are the ones who obey-preferably for the "bosses" - blindly (see well the drawing that heads the title this second part of this work).
Actually this supposedly humorous - or rather ironic - description is not mine. I borrowed it from Dr. Miron Tribes in a work on Processes in Organizations, published by Quality & Productivity, Inc, which came to INCE, in the "golden age" of the last (most recent, I meant) "Modernization »Between 1989 and 1993 when this author served as Manager of Strategic Planning. It is not necessary that they read it, (it is to order) especially those who are in functions of direction - or management - or leadership in any type of organization. Personally, I must admit that this Mr. Tribes is right: I have lived it, I live it daily.
So the questions fit:
Is our structure the most suitable, or does it only satisfy the interests and ego of some of its managers or "influential" people? A lot of hierarchy and "leadership" and few results…? Is the structure rigid… and the mentality !?,… Or rather should they be flexible to adapt in a timely manner to the changes that are generated from the environment?
- 3. FUNCTIONS: In every System, each one of the resources or components of the same fulfill certain duties, responsibilities or functions. Thus, in the human body - systemically speaking - the heart has the fundamental function of pumping blood throughout the rest of the system; and the Human Resources Department of any organization, for example, has the essential function of procuring, maintaining and enhancing the attitudinal and aptitude profile of individuals (Read: HR), according to the business strategies in which the Organization is, or those implicit in the Mission, and in the proper functions of the subsystems: Production, Finance, Marketing, Sales, Planning, generally speaking.
Are the functions well assimilated and distributed in our organization? Is there no dispersion and / or duplication of them, and with it loss of efforts? Are we complementing each other and achieving synergy or are we competing between "islands" of power within the organization?
- 4. RULES: To ensure that the resources or components of the system work towards the proposed objectives, it is essential to follow certain rules or patterns of behavior. In a humble cell, initial rules are given to you at birth, and other rules may emerge as a product of your own experience. The organizations that we all know agree to observe certain rules, call them norms, policies, guidelines, directives, standards, guidelines, principles, guides, values, etc. They must exist and, above all, they must be fulfilled, because otherwise - we see that every day - anarchy does its own thing and can destroy, put an end to the system. Theorists call this phenomenon: Entropy, and in natural systems it is produced by natural wear and tear, complying with a certain cycle.In the social organizations that we know, this process of attrition and destruction is produced by man himself, the human groups that work in it, and his own weaknesses.
Thus, in summary, the indisputable importance of them - the Rules - and their observance, of course, lies in the fact that they provide a certain stability to the system, to the organization, thus making their behavior and the degree of possible achievement of the objectives more predictable. Every society has its rules, the most complex are governed by a legal framework that, if it does not exist, if it is not respected, anarchy ends them. In the simplest systems, thanks to nature, the phenomenon or principle of Homeostasis occurs, through which they remain stable, in balance, in all its parts and with the environment. Humanity has been copying (intelligently?) From the simplest systems by creating the complex organizations - complex living systems - that we know today and that we have reviewed here as examples.
Are the norms and procedures, rules, regulations or the legal framework, in general, clear, in force, applicable? Are there "overlaps", gaps and inconsistencies? Do they not act…? boss ”or duty officer on duty? Are the processes and procedures the most suitable, rational and expeditious? Are they constantly reviewed and improved?
Another aspect of greater importance, within this conceptual foundation, and of great danger also to the stability and development of the organization, is the fact that many managers displaying great ignorance believe that having "resolved" the Rules and Procedures, the rest would be the least of it. This underestimation of the complexity of the system, of the organization, is suffered greatly by those who are in charge of Organizational Development, who have high responsibility, together with other organizational leaders (managers, assistant managers, division heads, supervisors, etc.) of promote and ensure, as far as possible, the necessary organizational behavior that is part of the challenges of the Mission, the Vision, the Strategic Objectives, etc., that the organization has formally assumed,to successfully achieve the major goals it has set for itself. Later, with reading and reflection, you will better understand this concern…
- 5. ENVIRONMENT: Every system is permanently acting within an environment, or environment, of which it is also part and with which it forms a larger system. A cell could be the smallest of the subsystems of an organ (the pancreas, for example, with its specific functions) and this in turn represents a subsystem of the human body. In systemic - organizational terms - an individual can be conceived as a subsystem of a certain functional unit, call it Directorate, Department, Division, Section, etc., and this, in turn, is a subsystem of the Organization, that is, it is worth insisting, any company or public institution. These in turn are part - as subsystems - of a larger system, either of a certain industrial sector of the economy, or of the national system of Public Administration, respectively.The vital importance of such a conception is to fully understand that there is an interrelation between all these subsystems and between these with the corresponding environments. If a single leaf on any tree, for example, where the photosynthesis process occurs, does not permanently interact with its environment, it simply perishes before its stated cycle.
An example, in nature, which is highly illustrative, is the sunflower: in permanent interaction with the sun and its relative position in the sky (the environment); therefore, at different times of the day we see these large flowers in different positions as if making sure to aim at the star and attract the energy it requires to undertake the processes implicit in its nature.
Speaking in terms of our organizations, whether public or private, how many do not perish or are "preserved" by force and survive despite their uselessness because their leaders, their managers, are not in permanent "Attunement" (See Feedback) with your ENVIRONMENT: your internal and external clients, or your users, your internal and external suppliers, the community to which you owe, etc., etc. How many of them have true Managers who timely visualize and detect the processes of entropy, waste, organizational anarchy and "softening" of the organizational culture and lack of connection with the environment in which they operate? Do they really know fully the environment, the organizational climate and how it affects the levels of efficiency, effectiveness and productivity?
- 6. INPUTS: Every social system, like every living organism, requires using, using certain resources such as: energy, raw material, information, time, creativity, etc. Social systems - let's not forget: the organizations we know - also require inputs to undertake their processes. As an equivalent of Insumo, the English version is also commonly used: In put.
Are you fully aware of the inputs that your organization uses, the unit where it operates, its specifications, suppliers (internal and external), possible substitutes, etc.? Are they the most appropriate to generate the best product or service? Will it be timely?
- 7. PROCESSES: The inputs used by any system undergo certain transformations. Thus, for example, in some organizations information is processed or transformed, fundamentally; such is the case of companies from different media. Others, such as furniture manufacturers, mainly use wood, glue, nails, lacquers, etc. for their processes. In short, every system consumes certain tangible goods or not, to process them, to transform them, to improve them, to "add value".
What and How are the Processes in our Organization? Are they the most appropriate? Are the implicit activities and tasks pertinent to the demands for improving current response capacity? What are unnecessary and only constitute "Waste"? Which really add value? How can we simplify them? How can we improve them? These questions are also valid for administrative procedures!
- 8. PRODUCTS: Every system, as we have already said, undertakes the most varied processes to generate, produce, certain products, which must be in accordance with the objectives and norms (the rules) established and with the demands of internal customers. and external. It is important to remember, when evoking the different organizations that we know: Industries, Businesses, Ministries, State Institutes, Associations, etc., that they can generate goods (tangible products) or services in all the variety that we can imagine. The concept of by-products (transformation stages) also enters here, while the complexity of the most varied processes establishes it.
Do we know what products and by-products our organization generates, and within it our unit? What are their attributes? Do they respond to the expectations of our clients (internal and external or users? Who buys them (they acquire or receive them) and why? Are there substitute products?… They are just some questions that day to day One day we must ask ourselves and respond to this aspect or conceptual foundation of systems.
- 9. FEEDBACK: It is also said Feedback. One element, a mechanism inherent in every simple living organism, as well as in a complex social system, is the activity of procuring and managing information. Without it, and the knowledge it generates, the system runs the risk of not being able to adapt to the environment and its constant requirements and demands (remember here the concept of Entropy). Many business organizations and not a few public institutions have perished, and particularly the first ones on a daily basis disappear, due to not detecting and acting in a timely manner on the weaknesses and strengths of the organization itself, and on the "signs" (and with them the threats). and present opportunities) that gives the greater system: The external Environment, that is to say, the Environment and within it, the market in which they compete,or the real demands and demands of the community. Thus: by comparing, evaluating, the objectives (and established goals) and the results actually obtained, we are feedback, feedback; we are, then, verifying how well or how badly we are doing it. Consequently, of course, we will be able to make all decisions, regulatory actions, deviation correction, as the case may be, and ensure compliance with the objectives set.deviation correction, as appropriate, and ensure compliance with the objectives set.deviation correction, as appropriate, and ensure compliance with the objectives set.
This foundation or component of the systems is also called: Feedback, in its English meaning. By the way, the Communication Theory is based on these concepts: input, the information that an interlocutor provides us; We process it (the brain acts) and generate a response, which produces feedback (feedback) for the first, repeating the cycle depending on the duration of the communication or conversation.
As you can deduce, here is the true importance of the generally poorly understood Units of Planning and Research, of Strategic Issues, Organization and Systems, of Organizational Development, of the Units of Management Control, Market Analysis, Institutional Relations, of Public Relations, etc., and management information systems, as support for decision-making, the latter particularly necessary in medium and large companies that operate in a highly competitive environment. Today, and our country does not escape this, the demands of society in general, and of the productive apparatus, also demand from public organizations the greatest possible effectiveness and efficiency; reason why the most modern and effective feedback mechanisms are increasingly necessary within it.
- 10. RESULTS: In fact, taking up the considerations of the previous foundation, the survival and development of the systems we have been talking about, depend on the result they obtain from the effort and performance to achieve their objective. Precisely, the economic and social utility of a system, the impact of its action, is determined by comparing its objectives and its results actually achieved in a certain period.
So let's ask ourselves:
What are the results of the management of the company or institution where we work? What is the impact, the scope of management of that organization on its members, be they shareholders, employees, and on customers / users and In general, about the market where it competes, or about the community and society as a whole? What is the degree of satisfaction and benefit perceived by customers and users? And if we are talking about a public organization, what is the degree of institutional relevance and legitimacy, given the real benefit it renders to the community, to the entire society? Do these Results ensure transit to the scope of the Corporate Vision?
So far, dear reader, we have reached a first approximation, because much more must be said -and reflect, and then act- on the meaning of Re-organization and Restructuring, above all, we repeat, when we think of MODERNIZATION. At least, we can clearly see that the Structure, is just one of the foundations, components or factors ("a star in the universe"?) Implicit in the total system, call it: Organization.
In the next installment, part III and last - for now - we will see in depth other approaches, but somehow coincidental, on this interesting topic, from well-known experts in organizations such as Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman, authors of “In Search for Excellence ”, Marcel Antonorsi B., Venezuelan researcher at IVIC and IESA, Peter Senge, author of“ The Fifth Discipline ”, and other authors.
Re-structuring is not the same as
RE-organize (and III)
«… What happens when you have the Technology….and the“ software ”, … before an ORGANIZATION… »
We saw in detail, in the previous installment (part II), that Structure is just one aspect of the many that support and explain an Organization.
Possibly this is ignored by few of our Directors or Managers, both public and private; but, at the moment of truth, in the practice that I have had to live, and this is also expressed by Peters and Waterman, supported by their international experience: «Every time an entity is reorganized, all or almost everything that it is really done is to restructure it, (and with it "move" some things of the system, I dare to add). All managers and consultants know that an organization is much more than what the graphics, boxes, lines, job descriptions can say… but very often we tend to proceed as if we ignored it; and when we want to change, we change the structure ». (boldface and parentheses are from the author of this essay)
I fully subscribe to the above approach, which is highly valid even when it came to light more than fifteen years ago, and is ignored - or underestimated - by many people. As I stated in the previous installment, in more than twenty years working as a university professional, consultant and teacher, I have lived and had first-hand knowledge of more than one failed "restructuring" in both private and public administration organizations, in where the same pattern has been manifested in terms of the way of conceiving Organizational Change, which - in practice - truly tends towards MODERNIZATION, in search of greater effectiveness and efficiency.
But what do Peters and Waterman rely on to claim that Structure is not synonymous with Organization?.
Why, according to these veteran international consultants, IS AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE EFFICIENCY OF AN ORGANIZATION SIMPLY NOT A MATTER OF CHANGE IN STRUCTURE? The change of structure, Restructure, and within the framework of such a concept consider the so-called Infrastructure or building, the technological platform (1) and equipment in general, for example, is important; but, with few exceptions, it is not enough to achieve the expected change, and it could even be a real failure! What would be these rare exceptions? Well, I dare to assure, the so-called "Smart Organizations", if there is one in Venezuela that proves 100% what this concept implies, coined by Peter Senge, who in his book "La Quinta Discipline ", shows that every organization must develop at least five disciplines,of which we will only mention Systemic Thought.
I make here a special call on the thought that heads this installment, taken from Moises Naim ("Venezuelan Companies. Your Management. Edit. IESA)):"… when you have the computer before an organization. " Equally worth saying: «when you think that the computer alone, the new« cutting edge »technology, a new furniture and / or building will solve all the ills of the organization, YOU ARE SIMPLY BETTING TO FAILURE.
An effective change desired for a given Organization, whatever it may be, public or private, requires relating, deeply analyzing and intervening in at least seven (7) fundamental aspects (model of the 7 “S”, for its translation in English), the investigations conclude Peters and Waterman applied in various organizations around the world. Let's see what they are:
Structure: represented by the «Boxes» of the Structural Organization Chart, as we usually see it (in the terms indicated in the second installment), as well as not a few of our managers from both public and private organizations; but in reality it should suggest the idea of assignment of responsibilities, division of labor and, of course, behind this idea we usually see people and, the degree of bureaucracy: Who does what, who depends on whom, or who commands whom, etc.
Here, I insist, is where it seems that the attention is focused, as far as organizational changes are concerned, hardly achieving, in the most benign cases, "alleviating" or "rolling the wrinkle" in the face of the real need to achieve "real" efficiency -true". Nor what to speak about the institutions of our public administration and what has been done for the sake of efficiency, rarely achieved, by pretending that removing or putting boxes to the measure of "clients and friends", would be more than enough.
Strategy: This is, in very simple terms, the set of guidelines that the Senior Management of an organization establishes so that all its members act according to the achievement of the general purposes and specific objectives agreed, taking into account weaknesses and strengths (internal or endogenous conditions / factors), and present opportunities and threats (we have already pointed this out) in the external environment or environment (external or exogenous factors). It includes the Strategy: Vision (projection of the desirable and possible future of the organization), the Mission, objectives, specific strategies, and the action plans to be undertaken. In short, it represents the Strategy, the chosen path to achieve the desired success. To better understand this we can imagine the navigation chart to take to the boat,the organization to "good port".
Therefore, when Evaluating an Organization: attention who are responsible for Organizational Development!, With a view to establishing necessary changes, to achieve high and recognizable levels of MODERNIZATION, we should start by thoroughly reviewing the Strategy: The existence of clear ideas, well spread and shared, at all levels, in this regard, it contributes significantly to improving the design, or redesign and adaptation, as the case may be, of the structure. In any case, it is important to keep in mind the old maxim that "structure is born with strategy".
The Systems (Systems): This is really all the formal and informal procedures that set the Organization in motion. In order not to confuse, we conceive the Systems, in this case, as subsystems of the larger system that represents the Organization as a whole; that is, the Human Resources, Administration, Planning, Budgeting, Management Control Subsystem, Management Information Systems, etc. In any case, remember that each of these subsystems is made up of other subsystems. In the case of Human Resources, for example, the subsystems of: Recruitment and Selection, Development, Remuneration, etc.
If you want to know "how well or how poorly things are being done" in an Organization (feedback mechanism, don't forget), you just have to focus the analysis on the systems. Generally, an Organization can be changed without dramatic restructuring (this has been resulting in public administration: dramatic and unproductive) if such systems are constantly reviewed and improved.
WE INSIST: Are the procedures we have the most suitable for generating the expected products and services, in costs, time, quality and satisfaction?
Management Style (Style): let's also call it “Leadership Style”. It is the newest thing that our times have imprinted on organizations and their old-fashioned "organizational dinosaurs," the "managers" themselves. Those who only deal with "direct" and "control" (command, well!), Have inexorably given way to the figure of the Manager, who is required in their daily work, at least the tasks of: planning, organize (not just "structure") motivate and control. As for such activities inherent in true leaders, I have adhered to the approach of my dear prof. Víctor Dezerega (IESA consultant, professor and researcher), according to which a Manager, a "Really Real" Leader of Strategies, must at least:
Plan strategically
Organize (not just about "structuring")
Dynamize, Ecologically "truth-truth" leadership.
Evaluate, diagnostically
Regular, heading and gear.
If the reader pays close attention to the first letters of each aspect or task, they form the acrostic: POWER which, nothing more and nothing less, constitutes the "magic wand" that every leader - not imposed - requires wisely to influence positively and successfully others.. But, the meaning and scope of such a word: Power, you must legitimately earn it !, demonstrating at all times a thorough knowledge in all these areas. Of course, in relation to the conception of leadership there are many theories and models that we will not review here. Interesting data can be found on one of the many existing theories on the subject: Situational Leadership, Transformational Leadership and its most renowned promoters.
In any case, it is worth asking: ARE ALL THOSE WHO ARE… AND ARE ALL THOSE WHO ARE? More clearly and directly: Are they in all positions of responsibility in our organizations, who are true leaders or have leadership potential? Are they or do they have the will and potential to become true leaders who have been "Managing" in these organizations? "They command" or they Manage / Lead "
Before answering, let us bear in mind something of transcendental importance when we speak of human groups in the search for common objectives: Members of Organizations hear what their managers say; but they believe more in what they really do and demonstrate.
For this reason, this aspect of Management Style, the aptitude and attitude training of organizational leaders and the capacity / will to model in inducing others, must also be considered of utmost importance when speaking of Organizational Change "of Truth-Truth", Because, frankly, we see so many "civil chiefs" on a daily basis in directive positions in ministries, autonomous institutes, universities, lyceums, schools, governments, city halls and, if that were not enough, in many "reputable" private companies. By the way, in relation to this last aspect, the always criticized - when not detested - public organizations, Juan Francisco Mejía B. wrote an article in El Universal (10-03-95), whose title is highly suggestive: “We must flood the Public Administration with management ”, referring specifically to that sector;but, surprisingly, evil is widespread, except for the honorable exceptions, also in the private sector.
The Staff (Staff): The Human Resource itself or, as it is proclaimed in theory: The «Most Valuable Asset of the Organization». From two points of view this aspect is usually considered: On the one hand, the Systems (or Subsystems) of Evaluation, Remuneration, Training, etc. are evoked. On the other, the moral, the attitude, the beliefs, the principles and values, everything that is part of the Organizational Culture.
Unfortunately, not a few of our managers, generally public and private, tend to underestimate the value of both aspects: the aptitude and the attitudinal. Moisés Naim (ob. Cit.) Refers to this fundamental concept of Organizational Culture and the special treatment it deserves - but is not generally given - in every project of organizational change.
For people to be, really, not only a mere "controllable" factor, but also deserving of the greatest attention from managers, it must be considered first of all as an asset, a capital that, in addition to being replaced, developed, cared for, used - better: taken advantage of - intelligently and, very especially, adequately motivated, considering also his family environment, while his well-being influences the worker's performance in a decisive way. Today, rather, at the proposal of the well-known exponent of the Human Resources Administration, Adalberto Chiavenato, of the Development of Human Talent.
By the way, are some of our public and private managers clear about the concept and true significance of Career Plans, or more broadly: Strategic Management of Human Resources or Human Talent, for example?
In fact, in the business field we also see the underestimation towards this very important aspect: note that in many of them the person who acts as a human resources manager is generally a lawyer, without any specific specialization, thus evidencing the sole interest of the management superior of those organizations: having someone in charge of "keeping the worker at bay" in their aspirations and how to "scrape" them legally as quickly as possible. It's that simple! The result: high staff turnover and the perpetuation of inefficiency in the organization. The same happens with the "candidates" to take responsibility for Organizational Development: "anyone who lands could serve…" (!)
The Skills. It is about the faculties, the skills that the Organization and its people must have, of course, for its efficient performance. What response capacity (efficiency / effectiveness / opportunity and quality of the product / service) do you have? What adaptability / innovation? Not only is it necessary sometimes to change strategy, orientation (and Paradigms!), It may also require new capacities and ways of seeing things. Undoubtedly, within such a concept comes the need to review the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Organization, among other no less important aspects. And if we talk about the Five Disciplines of Senge…?
The Objectives of Higher Order (Supraordinated Goals): The great purposes of the Organization, the clear positive Vision - widely shared - of the Future and its conditioning or postulates, be they explicit or implicit and that serve as a guide. Some of these postulates are not formally written but, because they represent a set of aspirations, they are usually above the "established", that is to say, the objectives that they agree to achieve year after year.
So far we have seen, therefore, the 7 fundamental aspects that, according to Peters and Waterman, must be deeply analyzed from the perspective of organizational change.
Antonorsi, another well-known Venezuelan researcher and consultant, also points to the same conception that we propose here: Structure is hardly an important aspect of the Organization, but not the only one, nor the most important one. Equally worth saying, reiterating what we have been arguing from the title we have given to this series of articles: Restructuring is not the same Reorganizing.
The model of analysis and organizational change proposed by Antonorsi, very similar to that already mentioned by Peters and Waterman, also considers, which we widely support, the Shared Values and motivating beliefs of the action (Naim and Freemont Kast also refer to these concepts). Indeed, recent discoveries in behavioral science attach significant importance to these aspects, unfortunately still ignored when not underestimated by many of our managers. Values and attitudes, as well as perceptions, give consistency and personality to the organization. We are talking about Organizational Culture! For this reason, it is also necessary to take them into account when thinking about Organizational Changes of «Truth-Truth».
As the reader may have deduced, with all this reflection we have made every attempt to look into the theory and analysis of systems, the fundamental basis for understanding, creating, planning and changing organizations and their complexities, as well as the environments or environments in which which perform. Within such a basis is, in particular, the essence of Systemic or Strategic Thought (or Approach) (among others, see Michel Godet: "Planning Strategic and Prospective"; Peter Senge, whom we have already mentioned with his work: "The V Discipline ", and Kenichi Ohmae:" The Mind of the Strategist "), Strategic Planning (See, among others, Jean P. Sallenave:" Strategic Planning "), or, also, as Henry Mintzberg conceives in his book: The Strategic process.
In short, just taking care of the structure, of the "boxes", or thinking that investing in new buildings and high-tech equipment - Technological Platform, he is told now - are sufficient actions to ensure the necessary change in an Organization, and consequently Achieving their MODERNIZATION is the worst mistake that organizational leaders make, with which they have caused great monetary losses to their companies, coupled with the loss of credibility and motivation in their people. Not to mention public organizations and the desirable change that we have secularly wanted to make in them. These, definitely, require a deeper analysis and consequently of more complex actions, since they are performed in an environment more influenced by political conditions,more open -and exposed- to public opinion and the scrutiny of other institutions and, of course, most in need of inter-institutional coordination.
Do you understand now the immense responsibility that we have when we deal? Organizational Development, when we undertake a process of adaptation, Organizational Modernization, due to the large number of complex aspects that must be kept in mind? Are you now aware of the countless mistakes that have passed before your eyes in the midst of happily called processes of "Restructuring" or "Modernization"? And the Organization Managers, where have they been?
So, do the same, analyze deeply (strategically, systematically) your organization - your system - and its environment, try to fully understand them at all times and take the lead so that you can model, propose, COMMUNICATE AND PROMOTE (“sell ”, Gain supporters, allies, keep this in mind!) To all members, not only to managers, A TRUE PROJECT OF CHANGE, MODERNIZATION that is truly feasible, desired, supported by a collective mobilization of adherence and commitment to the materialization of such project, sustained in a solid Organizational Culture - THAT IS NOT ACHIEVED, UNDERSTAND WELL, IN DAYS, NOR MONTHS, BUT IN YEARS - that aims at achieving greater effectiveness, efficiency, quality, productivity and competitiveness, and consequently ensures its development, general acceptance and permanence in time.
«MODERNIZE OR PERISH…?
…THAT IS THE QUESTION ! «.
