Some time ago we looked at Peter Drucker‘s views on what managers do. But what about the organization itself – how is it to be designed to help managers grow power, as Mary Parker Follett argued it should, in such a way that it is available as capacity where needed?
To begin with, let’s look at this summary, from Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, which Drucker provided of his thinking on the topic:
We have learned that organization does not start with structure but with building blocks; that there is no one right or universal design but that each enterprise needs to design around the key activities appropriate to its mission and its strategies; that three different kinds of work, operating, innovative, and top-management, require being structured and lodged under the same organizational roof; and that organization structure needs to be both task-focused and person-focused and to have both an authority axis and a responsibility axis.
We’re going to be looking, over the next few days, at what Drucker meant by this. Organizational design is a curious topic. As Drucker noted, it is perhaps the most studied aspect of management. But to what end?
A WSJ editorial cartoon (06MAR08) has a newly installed executive calling his secretary in to ask, “What are the motions I’m supposed to be going through?” Have you ever felt like that in a new outfit, a new position, or after an organizational change program?
What does that suggest about how management is viewed in the organization, and of the nature and weight of the burdens that will be placed on it – not to mention the design of the structures intended to help them carry those loads forward?
Please stop in over the next few days, and let us know what your experiences have been, and what are your views of what you have seen. We will all look forward to your joining in!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of organizational design, why do so many equate it with “CEO design?” Please see this piece from the WSJ for more about that. And while you’re considering the extraordinary effect on organizational performance attributed to singular bosses, consider the consequences of a CEO death – especially prominent in founder-owned and run businesses (also reported in the WSJ).
—
Note for mobile viewers: I have been advised that the previous system employed (feedm8) for viewing this site on a mobile device – PDA or phone – via a separate feed or address seems to have been interrupted, and I have been compelled to conclude that is has also become unreliable.
Accordingly, I have had a different system implemented for mobile users. Those of you who prefer to read Managing Leadership on your mobile devices may now access it using the same web or feed address as that for regular computers; it should detect your device and provide the mobile version of the site. Please allow me to offer my appreciation for your loyalty and patience, and my hopes that you will find this new solution effective.
—
Want to read articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica for free? Take a moment to scroll down the sidebar on the main site a bit: right below my current readings you will see a dynamically renewing box pointing to articles on capitalism from the Britannica. These are typically available only by paid subscription, but if you click through to an article from here, you will be able to read it for free. Try it!
And speaking of subscriptions, ours here are always free! Why not subscribe by email or RSS reader now?
Technorati Tags: manager, organization, power, enterprise, mission, work, management, authority, responsibility, WSJ, executive, secretary, CEO
Sphere: Related Content
4 Comments
Hi Jim,
I agree with Peter’s statement” “Each enterprise needs to design around the key activities appropriate to its mission and its strategies.”
However, I find it a little disconcerting that he separates innovative from operating. Why are they seen as mutually exclusive?
Yes, operating innovation will look different than strategic innovation, but this idea of divorcing innovation from operations is not serving us.
We’re back to the innovation snobbery which I blogged about here: http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/innovation-snobbery-is-not-serving-organizations
Regards,
Michelle Malay Carter
Good issue, Jim. In my work, I try to get across the idea that the basic strategy of any organization lies in how it is “composed.” Other strategies often don’t work because they don’t fit with the underlying structure of the organization.
Hello Michelle,
I think Drucker is actually identifying separately the key things that organizational design must help promote, but he is doing this so that those factors can be addressed conceptually – it is not necessarily his intent that any of these factors be conducted separately.
As we will see in a later post, he is aware that these functions at the very least must be integrated much as are the superficially multiple systems of the super-system of the human body – an analogy he used.
The post you cite seems to me to be an excellent example of what Drucker might say regarding such integration – of management, operations, and innovation. I hope viewers will click through to it from your commment – it is well worth the time!
Thanks as always for your visit, your work and writing, and your insightful comments.
Lee – this is such a great line: “. . .the basic strategy of any organization lies in how it is ‘composed.’” Drucker placed great importance in the strategy/structure link, arguing that there was not much future, or point, in trying to pursue either one independently of the other.
Thanks!
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] conviction extends to our current topic of organizational design. Discussions of it tend to center around structural issues – how layered [...]
[...] been looking, over the past few days, at some of Peter Drucker’s ideas about organizational design. The main lesson of his [...]
Post a Comment