2012classnotes-orggov2.wmwikis.net - User contributions [en]

Class Session 5

2012-03-02T00:09:38Z

Llbohonatkinso: Imported from Wikispaces

{|
|''' '''Organizations''' '''as''' '''Political Systems''''''Suzie Armstrong''' '''Terry Fassanella''' '''Madeline Goldman''' '''J'''ohn Hall''' '''Terry Hinders''' '''Marcia Strange''' ---- ---- ||''' [[File:organizational_system.jpg|628x368px]] !!
|-
|}

----
=Topic Overview:[[File:power_and_influence.jpg|306x140px|right]]=
This week’s readings focused on Organizations as Political Systems. Couched in this political framework are various layers. The layers discussed are centered on interests, conflict, and power. Often these components revolve around decision-making involving allocation of scarce resources. As a result, coalitions and alliances of groups with similar interests form to negotiate and bargain for these scarce resources. In turn, conflict arises between groups with varying interests. Moreover, Morgan asserts that while workplace conflict can promote competition and collaboration, it can also disrupt office productivity with personality clashes. 

Amid the readings by Cohen & March, and Morgan, there are multiple sources of power, many of which are rooted in control. This control includes finances, technology, rewards, and information. According to Clark, sagas are an everyday occurrence in the workplace, and to some extent, each work environment is defined by how these sagas enhance or diminish our work life. Although somewhat predictable, Bolman and Deal’s advice on positioning is quite relevant in politics and working through the stages of conflict. As a result from the assigned readings, a better understanding of the political systems framework is gleaned and the ability to more effectively lead an office or program within an organization is acquired.
----
{|
| '''Terminology''' ----
|-
| '''Autocracy''': absolute government where power is held by an individual or small groups and supported by control of critical resources, property or ownership rights, tradition, charisma, and other claims to personal privilege'''Bureaucracy''': rule exercised through use of the written word, which provides the basis for a rational-legal type of authority, or “rule of law”'''Technocracy''': rule exercised through us of knowledge, expert power, and the ability to solve relevant problems'''Codetermination''': the form of rule where opposing parties combine in the joint management of mutual interests, as in coalition government or corporatism, each party drawing on a specific power base'''Representative democracy''': rule exercised through the election of officers mandated to act on behalf of the electorate and who hold office for a specified time period or so long as they command the support of the electorate, as in parliamentary government and forms of worker control and shareholder control in industry'''Direct democracy''': the system where everyone has an equal right to rule and is involved in all decision making, as in many communal organizations such as cooperatives and kibbutzim. It encourages self-organization as a key mode of organizing.'''Overbound system''': power is highly concentrated. Everything is tightly regulated.'''Underbound system''': power is diffuse. The system is loosely controlled.'''Tautology:''' Also known as "rhetoric". The process of using different words to say the same thing, even if the repetition does not provide clarity.
|-
|}
Summary of Class Readings
{|
||| '''Bolman & Deal: Chapter 9 Power, Conflict & Coalition'''''Political Assumptions (pp. 194-195)'' * Coalition members have differences in values, information, information, and perceptions of reality. * Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources. * Scare resources and differences in values put conflict in center of day-to day dynamics. * Goals and decision making emerge from bargaining and negotiating among stakeholders jockeying for their own interests. * Organizations are coalitions of individuals and interest groups.  ''Implications of Political Propositions (p. 196)''* Differences and scarce resources make power a key resource. * Power is the ability to make something happen. ''Organizations as Coalitions (p. 198)''* Cyert and March (1963) – Differences btwn structural and political views of goals. * Confusion over wage payments (“costs”) and dividend payments (“profit.”) * Makes slightly more sense to say that the goal of a business enterprise is to maximize profit than to say to say its goal is to maximize the salary of the janitor. ''Relational Conceptions (p. 200)''Cyert and March (1963): Relational Concepts – rules to make decisions manageable.1) Quasi-resolution of conflict: Instead of solving conflict, the problem is broken up into smaller pieces for different units. Decisions never consistent, and only need to be good enough to keep the coalition functioning.2) Uncertainty avoidance: Orgs use a range of simplifying mechanisms (SOPs and traditions that enables them to act as if the environment is clearer than it is.3) Problemistic search: Organizations look for solutions near the presenting problem and grab the first acceptable solution.4) Organizational learning: Over time, organizations evolve their goals, altering what they attend to and what they ignore.''Power and Decision Making (p. 201)''* Alliances form b/c members have common interests. Can do more together than apart. * Human Resource theorists: Less emphasis on power and more on empowerment. - Power typically viewed as negative. In reality power produces results. ''Authorities and Partisans (p. 201)''* Participation, openness, and collaboration substitute for power. * Gamson (1968) – Relationship btwn antagonists – partisans and authorities. * By virtue of their position, authorities are entitled to make decisions on their subordinates. * Authorities are the recipients or targets of influence, and agents of social control. (Ex: Parents function as authorities, children as partisans. Parents make decisions, but children try to influence the decision makers.) ''Sources of Power (Baldridge, 1971; French & Raven 1959, Pfeffer, 1981) (p. 203)''* Position Power (authority): Positions confer levels of legitimate authority. * Control of Rewards: Ability to deliver jobs, money and rewards brings power. * Coercive: Rests in the ability to constrain, block, interfere or punish. * Information & expertise: Power flows to those with the info and know how. * Reputation: builds on expertise. Track records based on prior performance. * Personal Power: Attractive and social adept b/c of charisma, energy and vision. * Alliances/Networks: Getting things done involves working in complex groups. * Access & Control of agendas: By-product of alliances/networks is making agendas. * Framing: Elites can convince others to support things not in their best interest. ''Distribution of Power - Alderfer (1979) and Brown (1983)(p.205)''* Overbound: Power is highly concentrated, everything is tightly regulated. * Underbound: Power is diffuse and the system is loosely controlled. ''Conflict in Organizations (p.206)''* Combination of scares resources + divergent interests ''' conflict. * Conflict is not always a problem or sign that something is amiss. * The management challenge is to recognize and manage interface conflict. VIDEO: What sources of power and implications of decision-making are seen in this clip from the movie Crimson Tide? Also consider the politics of leadership at play here. (Note: some Not Safe For Work language) [[media type'''"youtube" key'''"Q1sLU6HOxyI" height'''"315" width'''"560"]] | | ---- [[File:conflict_of_interest.jpg|center]] . . . . . ---- [[File:power_structural.jpg|center]] ---- . . . . . . . . . . ---- . [[File:power_play.jpg|center]]
|-
| ''''(p. 202-206)'' * Organizational politics has become a taboo subject, due to the ideal that the goals of the organization should take priority over personal objectives. However, a political analysis is critical to our understanding of the key sources of power within an organization. It helps us understand why organizations do not always behave as rational, functionally integrated systems. It can explain how employees are motivated by proximity or access to power. It also allows us to examine the role that organizations play in the larger society. * However, use of the political metaphor exclusively can lead to the tendency to view an organization very cynically, assuming hidden political agendas everywhere. In addition, it may overstate the power of individuals at lower levels of an organization and understate the significance of those who hold the ultimate decision making authority for setting its course. VIDEO: Igor Popovich, Director of the Career Professional Australia organization, offers some advice on "How to Get What You Want" with power in negotiation. Think about the various sources of power that he discusses in negotiation settings. Also, admire his shiny vest and his reaction when his phone rings at the 4-minute mark. He seems like an interesting fellow. [[media type'''"youtube" key'''"T6k-6GxriiE" height'''"315" width'''"420"]] | ||| ---- [[File:organization_cartoon_1.jpg|234x214px|center]] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- . [[File:definition_of_power.jpg|center]] ---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- '''Significant Sources of Organizational Power''' * Formal authority * Control of scarce resources * Use of organizational structure, rule, and regulations * Control of decision process * Control of knowledge and information * Control of boundaries * Ability to cope with uncertainty * Control of technology * Interpersonal alliances, networks, and control of “informal organization” * Control of counterorganizations * Symbolism and the management of meaning * Gender and the management of gender relations * Structural factors that define the stage of action * The power one already has ---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- [[File:pawlitics.jpg|center]] ---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- [[File:aba0756l.jpg|280x271px|center]]
|-
|}

{|
| '''Cohen & March - Leadership in an Organized Anarchy:'''[[File:twin495l.jpg|336x251px|right]] The term “anarchy” conjures images of society running amok- making its own rules without any governmental control. In this reading, Cohen & March describe the four ways in which college presidents must deal with the “organized anarchy” typical in a modern-day university. They identify four fundamental ambiguities of the presidency - the ambiguity of purpose, the ambiguity of power, the ambiguity of experience, and the ambiguity of success. They describe how leadership methods are challenged by these ambiguities, and provide suggestions and tactics for response at each level.* '''The Ambiguity of Purpose:''' What are the goals of a university? Does anyone really know? Do they care? A typical college president is faced with ever-changing priorities and goals and “lives within a normative context that presumes purpose within an organizational context that denies it” (pg. 17). There is no typical “model” or correct purpose which is shared by everyone within an organization, and while mission statements and goals are important and useful as a guide, “they accept the presumption that intelligent leadership presupposes the rational pursuit of goals.” (pg. 17) * '''The Ambiguity of Power''': Who has the “real” power on a typical college campus? A college president can play the ambiguity card here because in many instances, the position reports to numerous entities - the community, the faculty, the trustees, the students, the parents, and governmental leaders. It can be easy to “shift the blame” in times of famine, and take responsibility for achievements in times of feast. A good president will recognize this confusion of presidential limits on power, and not make goals or promises that are unrealistic to achieve. * '''The Ambiguity of Experience''': “Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again” (Jones, F.P.) While we all attempt to learn from our own experiences and mistakes, Cohen & March offer a simple learning paradigm for the college president: # The president is presented with list of actionable items and alternatives. # The president chooses one of the alternatives. # The president observes & assesses the outcome. # The president repeats the behavior that works, and changes the behavior if not. Like a child who is burned by a flame, some lessons are not learned until they are experienced fully. But sometimes, experience is not the best teacher, and a president would be wise to consider the advice of a predecessor, so as not to dive into the deep end of a pool if he doesn’t know how to swim. College presidents may also have a false impression of their ability to make sound decisions because of the “yes” mentality in his presence. * '''The Ambiguity of Success:''' It always seems as though there is another “rung” on the ladder, but for the college president, “There’s nowhere to go but DOWN from here”. Once an educational administrator reaches the top of the academic ladder as a college president, it is rare that the position is a stepping stone to the presidency at another, more elite, university. Advanced age may dictate the next level of advancement. In addition, it is hard to measure success at the presidential level, as there are so many competing factors that affect the climate of a university. As with the ambiguity of power, many measurable milestones are out of the control of one person. Success or failure can be attributed to a college president regardless of the strength of his contribution. Cohen & March suggest that a college president “find pleasure in the process of presidential life...(and) seek reminders of his relevance and success.” (pg. 20) '''Leader Response to Anarchy''': According to Cohen & March, the key to dealing with the ambiguities of this position listed above is a sense of humility. A president’s reputation will likely be defined by “broad social events or by the unpredictable vicissitudes of official responsibility than by his actions.” (pg. 21) “A college president is, on the whole, better advised to think of himself as trying to do good than as trying to satisfy a political or bureaucratic audience; better advised to define his role in terms of the modest part he can play in making the college slightly better in the long run than in terms of satisfying current residents or solving current problems...(they) occupy a minor part in the lives of a small number of people. They have some power, but little magic.” (pg. 21). [[File:tcrn147l.jpg|right]] '''The Elementary Tactics of Administrative Action:''' How does a leader with a purpose operate within an organization absent of purpose? Cohen & March describe 5 major properties of decision making to get things accomplished within an organized anarchy: Understand that the '''actual issue being presented usually isn’t about the content,''' it’s about the personal feelings and attitudes of those affected by the outcome. # '''Red-tape'''. If it takes to long to coordinate the effort to solve a particular problem, it probably won’t happen, however, once started - it is difficult to stop. # “'''Any decision can become a garbage can for almost any problem.”''' Timing is everything. # '''System overload''' is common, and when this occurs, it is unlikely that a decision will be reached through a formal process. # '''Weak institutional memory''' can reek havoc on the best laid plans. If events and decisions are not properly recorded, one can easily repeat avoidable mistakes. In order to influence the course of decision making, Cohen & March suggest the following tactical rules: # '''Spend time''' - if you have a problem that needs to be addressed, be prepared to be part of the solution. Do your homework and attend committee meetings so that you are present when important issues are presented. # '''Persist'''- “it is a mistake to assume that today’s victory will be implemented automatically tomorrow.” (pg. 23) # '''Exchange Status for Substance'''- Self-importance should be left at the door. Although college presidents receive and are denied credit for things they have little control over, they should do the same for others, and allow others to savor some of the victories. # '''Facilitate Opposition Participation'''- Allow those around you to help with decision making, and encourage them to come up with alternate solutions rather than just what you want to hear. # '''Overload the System''' - Don’t fall into the trap of committing all of your energies and resources into any one project. Decision making in “energy poor” organizations is often left to the people who initiated the project, or the administrators who have the power and the money to make a decision. # '''Provide “Garbage Cans”''' - This is reminiscent of a government bill that is filled with “extras” just to get it passed. Again, timing is everything - figure out where the proposal needs to be on the agenda for a favorable decision. # '''Manage Unobtrusively''' - “a central tactic in high inertia systems is to use high-leverage minor actions to produce major effects.” (pg. 26) No one will notice.... # '''Interpret History''' - Consider the consequences of past decision making. Some strategies for recording events to evade the legitimacy of the actual discussion are included, but not necessarily agreed with by the summary writer! '''The Technology of Foolishness:''' An organization is often defined by its purpose, and in this section we learn about the ways in which some college presidents confront these ambiguities by defining a set of objectives, often basing decisions on gut instinct or through tradition (that’s the way we’ve always done it), rather than on reason. Thinking should precede action - not the reverse. '''The Problem of Goals:''' Within the three classic justifications for goal setting, college presidents tend to set “good (read: not necessarily realistic) goals” rather than make “good decisions”. (pg. 30) Cohen & March recommend that we look at our choices realistically, like children. Children know what they want, and repeat the behaviors that work in order to get what they want. They set a goal, and continue to pursue different behaviors - perhaps developing more interesting “wants” until they find the behavior that works - regardless of the consequences. They develop their values based on experience. For college presidents, it is essential to first figure out the values, then act. (pg. 31). Summary writer’s side note: Former W & M President Gene Nichols, might have done better had he followed this advice. Although, in some organizations, it is better to act before thinking; as it is may be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. '''President’s and Foolishness:''' “There is little magic in the world, and foolishness in people and organizations is one of the many things that fail to produce miracles...”(pg. 35) Those of you who were around when President Gene Nichol was fired/resigned for the cross controversy will notice a theme within these readings. The power struggle that ensued between the President, Students, Board of Visitors, Faculty, and the Community clearly proved that the power is not all in the President’s hands. [[image:https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/unz8rVseAlHke9RMokOntlGI-VHr0cKA85-8sL6jte3V8zrcB6GJhsEXjB5e9tVMPjy9tR6THB-wlrBoiCiOI3yWvzP1o1xdQL1wo0MCiuahzNM83w]] [[File:https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/yDK6Q00QnXvEmbFMxousHn-CTccrbDnbK3g0nu9wA1llwbKUxvYjEt5tyyJupbj48kAnNX1xCtQsQXUKLSMrkHs5GpHaatwdikYzaedKC6DIL6FN7w|405x33px]] [http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/10610/william-and-mary-president-resignsv | Read the story here!]
|-
| '''Clark, B. R. - The Organizational Saga In Higher Education:'''* An organizational saga is a collective understanding of unique accomplishments in a formally established group. * Organizational saga refers to a unified set of publicly expressed beliefs about the formal group that is (a) rooted in history (b) claims unique accomplishment and (c) is held with sentiment by the group. * The story helps rationalize for the individual his commitment of time and energy for years, perhaps for a lifetime, to a particular enterprise. * Organizational sagas show high durability when built slowly in structures social context. * When the saga is firmly developed, it is embodied in many components of the organization, affecting the definition and performance of the organization and finding protection in the webbing of the institutional parts. * Two stages can be distinguished in the development of an organization, initiation and fulfillment. * The saga is initially a strong purpose, conceived and enunciates by a single man or small cadre whose first task is to find a setting that is open to a special effort. Reed College started this way with nonconformity as its principle. * Initiation can also come for an established organization in a crisis of decay. This was the case at Antioch College, reformed by a new president that radically transformed the college. * Initiation can also occur in organizations ready for evolutionary change. This is true for Swarthmore College * Fulfillment centers on personnel, the program, the external social base, the student subculture and the imagery of the saga. * When senior faculty are devoted to a new idea, a saga is probable. Such faculty cadres were developed at all three colleges. * The program becomes a set of communal symbols and rituals invested with meaning. Swarthmore had special seminars and other practices in the honors program. Antioch had a work study program, GERs, community government and community involvement. Reed had special freshmen lecture and seminar courses, junior qualifying examination. * The saga also becomes fixed in the minds of outside believers devoted to the organization usually the alumni. * Liberal alumni seek to conserve what they believe to be a unique liberal institution and protect it from conservative forces of society that might change it. * The student body is the third group of believers. To remain a saga a change must be supported by the student subculture. This was true at all 3 colleges. * The saga is more widely expressed as a generalized tradition in statues and ceremonies, written histories and current catalogs. * An organizational saga is a powerful means of unity in an organization.
|-
| '''2/23/12 Class Notes'''[[File:ktan280l.jpg|right]] The Political Frame was the focus of class this week, with a Powerpoint presentation given as an overview to begin the evening. Initial discussion was centered on the sources of power that various organizational members held within groups. An interesting point was brought up about the influence of secretaries and administrative staff who can sometimes act as gatekeepers to valued information. From these groups came a discussion on coalitions and the sources of power within them as derived from the Morgan article. Among the 14 that Morgan listed, the class focused on the control of technology as a very important component in this day and age. Pam stressed the point of considering our own sources of power that we possess in our toolbox. The conversation turned to '''conflict''' within these coalitions, including ways to stimulate (holding back information, overcommunicating) and reduce conflict (avoidance, compromise). An interesting point was brought up about the creation of a meeting agenda, where calls for conflicts are set at the end, when co-workers are likely to be tired and ready for the meeting to end, making it less likely they raise conflicts. Also, we learned that Pam does not like to be patted on the head. After a good laugh, the discussion shifted to several definitions and theories of power and control. Resource allocation (control is with those who manage the resources), modernist (power is through coercion), cybernetic (managing the differences in performance between individual and the organization, agency (managers will act in the best interest of owners), and Market/Bureaucracy (achieve cooperation among individuals). This part of the conservation wrapped up with some interesting points on gender and organizations. Pam noted the discrepancies between male/females in higher education roles, especially that of President and professor. We also covered Carla Costello’s research on sticky floors, or why some staff cannot escape junior roles, and Kelly Ward and Lisa Wolf Wendell’s research on extending the clock on tenure track to allow for maternity leave. We wrapped up with the point that organizational structures and ideologies were often male-gendered, which could carry implications for power.[[File:forn959l.jpg|right]] After an exercise that brought our case-study teams together to ponder the organizational saga that was at play in our case, the class watched a clip from the movie Apollo 13. The clip acted to demonstrate the political frame on display during the mission crisis. We could see the frame through the various interest groups within the mission negotiating and bargaining for the scare resources and information that was available. The class took note of the different groups and subgroups that were depicted in the scene from the mission commander to the engineers and managers of the mission components. A significant point was made here about the '''importance of dress''' in determining your role. The commander was wearing a vest, the only one to do so, the managers were all in white shirts and black ties, and the engineers were dressed down even more. The classification of job responsibilities as denoted by dress sparked a good conversation. Finally, we discussed the various sources of power that were evident in the clip, from information (which one manager knew, giving him power to control the decision making) to the personal and symbolic power of the commander (as he drew the image on the board and used an authoritative voice to gather recommendations). The class session wrapped up with a role-playing exercise to demonstrate the planning of a dual enrollment policy with four groups acting as a K-12 administrator, K-12 teacher, college administrator, and college faculty. The groups would represent their various interest groups and consider what issues and policies would pertain to their cause. Within each interest group, the members reflected on sources of conflict and issues of decision-making within the group. From that, the class split into 6 subgroups that would be comprised of one member from every interest group. Even though class time was running short, it was clear to see the conflict of interests that was arising as the different interest groups came together to form a policy where each side had their own idea and desires for success. This was a really nice exercise to demonstrate the issues of conflict and power within interest groups and then show the difficulty in forming policy when multiple interest groups come together. VIDEO: Learning how to resolve conflict in the workplace. From a ninja. Quite funny, but also listen for the pros and cons of conflict in organizations and see how they match up with the suggestions offered in class. [[media type'''"youtube" key'''"nVupFiks9Y0" height'''"315" width="560"]]
|-
| [[File:Quoteoftheday.jpg|301x211px|left]] "Yeah, I haven't seen this movie either." -- Mike Mullin "Whaaaaaaat?!" -- The entire class "Okay, we've really got to take Mike out!" -- Pam
|-
| '''Extending the Conversation:'''Depending on your position and goals, different types of power are necessary in order to accomplish the objective. This article provides arguments of how legitimate power allows democratic institutions to develop. Herbst asserts that power is a relationship, not a commodity. Responsible leaders must use their power, authority and influence for the common good/collective goals.[http://2012classnotes-orggov2.wmwikis.net/file/view/Legitimate%20Power%20in%20a%20Mediated%20Age.pdf | Legitimate Power in a Mediated Age.pdf]This article describes how men and women differ with how they obtain and use power. Men use harder, more forceful tactics while women use softer, more relational tactics. Regardless of gender, the symbol of vision and the creation of strong relationships with followers will transform both leaders and followers.[http://2012classnotes-orggov2.wmwikis.net/file/view/Leader%27s%20use%20of%20Influence%20Tactics.pdf | Leader's use of Influence Tactics.pdf]Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2002). ''The leadership challenge'' (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Kouzes and Posner are an essential source in expanding the field of leadership. ''The'' ''Leadership Challenge'' has been referred to as a leader’s comprehensive field guide. Within the text, they walk leaders through the process of how to gain influence from establishing credibility, modeling, and inspiring others. Whereas in section four of the text, they encourage leaders to challenge the process through searching for opportunities whereby they seize the initiative, exercise outsight, and take action. Additionally they spur leaders to challenge the process through experiment and taking risks by generating small wins and learning from experience. This often results in some degree of conflict and it is the leader's responsibility to aid their constituents to develop hardiness which address control, commitment, and attitude.Maxwell, J.C. (2005). ''The 360-degree leader: Developing your influence from anywhere in the organization''. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.As a leader, it is critical to determine the optimal place to lead from within the organization. In John Maxwell’s book, ''The 360 – Degree Leader'', he reveals 99% of all leadership within most organizations occurs in the middle. It is from this place where a leader can practice, exercise, and extend influence. Within the text, Maxwell journey’s the reader through exploring the myths of influence, potential, and control. He then leads the reader through the principles of leading up (to the boss), leading across (to peers), and leading down (to those you supervise)'''.'''Ward, K. & Wolf-Wendle, L. (2006). ''Faculty Work and Family Life: Policy Perspectives from Different Institutional Types.'' Virginia: Stylus Publishing.As mentioned in class, this work looks at the gender issue in higher education faculty work-life balance issues. Ward and Wolf-Wendle raise interesting points concerning the beginning of the tenure track clock and maternity leave, as well as various policies that relate to this idea at different institutions. This is an important consideration as we as future leaders argue and plot policies at our various institutions.[http://books.google.com/books?id'''aFU8KAU8uHkC&pg'''PA51&lpg'''PA51&dq'''faculty+work+and+family+life+kelly+ward&source'''bl&ots'''0bh-cn35w1&sig'''0WL3SfVAEzlILhBtvTGceXvwE4k&hl'''en&sa'''X&ei'''SWNKT5ScHaf9sQLu2_3qCA&ved'''0CFUQ6AEwBw#v'''onepage&q'''faculty%20work%20and%20family%20life%20kelly%20ward&f'''false | Faculty Work and Family Life (Google Books)]An self-assessment of the influence and power you already have can be helpful as you work to promote change within your organization. For a sociological model for evaluating your current and potential sources of power, see this article by Drs. William Smith and Elizabeth Davis: [[http://users.erols.com/aic/Papers/transforming_organizations.htm]]
|-
| '''[[File:food_for_thought_solidbusinesswealth.jpg|156x229px|left]]''' '''''''Food for Thought:''''''''= To wrap this up, we would like to offer one good take-away from the class conversation that we should all keep with us as future leaders and directors: When applying this frame to higher education, it is critical to remember location (rural/urban), size (small, medium, large), and organizational culture is incredibly important when considering the power, interests, politics, and conflict within an office, program, department, or institution.
|-
|}

Class Session 3

2012-02-28T16:13:38Z

Llbohonatkinso: Imported from Wikispaces

{|
| '''WEEK #4 (Feb 9, 2012)- BUREAUCRATIC UNIVERSITIES''' Leslie Bohon-Atkinson, John Drummond, Cristen McQuillan, Michael Mullin, Casey Van Veen '''Topic overview:''' '''This week’s topic focused on bureaucracy in a professional setting. Weber's (1949) seminal piece on bureaucracy provides the foundation of bureaucracy. Mintzberg (1979) expands the research on bureaucracy by identifying universities' bureaucracy as "professional bureaucracy," which addresses the need for the standardization and control of specialized skills in the work environment. Bolman and Deal (2008) chapter 4 dealt with structuring and restructuring of organizations. They use Mintzberg's five components of organizational structure and Helgesen's web of inclusion to discuss change and structural adaptation. The pros and cons of such control can be debated without a clear solution. Finally, Dill (1984) reviews research and literature on administrative behavior that developed due to a rapid growth of American higher education after World War II. Synthesizing our articles and classroom debate, we concluded that while professional bureaucracy can be very helpful in terms of providing a consistent and efficient work environment, the structure must be flexible enough to allow for creative invention and professional advancements to occur.''' '''To accompany our article summaries, we added cartoons, video clips, and articles to expand on the ideas of universities as bureaucracies. One article is a 2011 commentary by Gary Olson from Idaho State University, entitled “If Only I Knew Then…”. His advice to new administrators includes the belief that administrators who rule as bureaucrats are missing the mark; administrators must advocate for their faculty and be agents of change. Our debate conclusion that “soft bureaucracy” is an attractive option relates nicely to Olson’s advice. Another Chronicle of Higher Education article by Thorp and Goldsten (2010) advises on restructuring institutions and gives examples (interesting from our case study angle). A final related article by Cressey (1958), which is suggested in Mintzberg's article, describes prison administration as either machine bureaucracy (custodial-oriented) or professional bureaucracy (treatment-oriented). We hope our wiki will be useful to you! Enjoy!''' || [[File:images-univ.jpg|181x134px|right|Professional]]
|-
|}

{|
| '''Terms and Definitions for this week''' ||
|-
| Bureaucracy (Weber, 1946) || * '''Monocratic Organization - '''"Single leader." An organizational structure that follows the "One Boss" rule. From the top down, everyone reports to a single supervisor. * '''Prebendal Officialdom''' - Patronal offices where the stipend is drawn from the coffers of the closed organization, such as a diocese or guild * '''Subaltern''' - Of a lower rank; inferior.
|-
| Professional Bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1979) || * '''Professional Bureaucracy''' - A structural configuration that focuses on standardization of professional skills. Because professional work is complex, it must be controlled directly by the operator (a professional such as a professor, doctor, accountant). Examples of professional bureaucracies: universities, hospitals, accounting firms, etc.
|-
| Reframing Organizations: Structure and Restructuring (Bolman & Deal, 2008) || * '''Mintzberg's Fives '''- Structural images designed to demonstrate the size and clout of five separate organizational groups as they occur within different organizational structures. * '''Operating Core -''' Members of an organization who provide goods or services to consumers. * '''Middle Line''' - Mid-level management. * '''Strategic Apex''' - The most senior directors of an organization. * '''Technostructure''' - Specialists, technicians, and analysts who standardize, measure, and inspect outputs and procedures. * '''Support Staff''' - Supports the work of others in the organization, such as secretaries or custodians.
|-
| Administrative Behavior in Higher Education (Dill, 1984) || * '''human relations skills''' - interpersonal skills applied when a manager relates to superiors, peers, and subordinates * '''peer-related behavior''' - developing contacts in the organization, maintaining information networks, and negotiating and communicating with peers * '''leadership behavior''' - dealing effectively with subordinates * '''conceptual skills''' - ability to think through the coordination and integration of the organization's diverse activities ("strategic thinking") * '''information processing behavior''' - monitoring one's networks for obtaining information, extracting and assimilating information, and communicating the "pictures" the manager develops * '''resource allocation behavior -''' allocation of organization's critical assets (time, money, skill) among competing demands * '''entrepreneurial behavior''' - discovering problems and opportunities for which "improvement projects" will be initiated * '''introspective behavior''' - manager's understanding of the job, sensitivity to his or her personal impact, and learning from these insights * '''technical skill''' - technique or expertise of "management" and the professional expertise or skill the individual practiced prior to becoming a manager
|-
|}
==='''Class Notes from 2/9/12'''===

'''Walkabout - Elements of bureaucracy'''

What are the main characteristics of bureaucracy?
* Official duties
* Rules of authority
* Qualifications and reviews
* Special type of workforce – want security, well trained, benefits (pension)
* Rigid rules and procedures to follow
* Top-down
* Heavily controlled
How does current context/technology shift Weber’s concepts?
* Organizations must now be more accepting to change
* There is a different type of workforce now who expect different things
* People are less faithful to the company, more faithful to their field
* There is less money to go around, but the qualifications are still heavily expected
* Qualifications can be taken for granted – it is more common for people to be technologically savvy
* Some benefits don’t even exist anymore, some jobs don’t even last 20 years anymore
What is the current role of "education certificates" for work qualifications?
* Depends on the viewpoint
* Human resources love them
* In some cases they are not a good measure of capability
How might a post-modernist view “expert power”?
* May view the experts as people who only have power because we give it to them
Generally speaking, the whole class agrees that Weber’s model is a bit outdated.

'''Class Debate – Bureaucracy Pros and Cons'''

'''Cons:''' 
- Gender roles were different when Weber came up with this theory. Specialized hierarchical power, patriarchal rule. Times are different now. Women understand that to be more powerful they need to have an education. Imbalance of gender roles.
- The stability is definitely not the same as it was when Weber was writing. The same stability can be seen as more rigid and stifling, then secure.
- Rules and policies can impede progress. Companies won’t have the flexibility to grow and change with them in place.
- Too many rules breed complacency, especially at the top. Doesn’t allow the specialization as it used to be. Can become a hindrance for abstract thinking and creative ideas.
- Web of inclusion
- Pigeonholes people, creates people who are only capable of one thing, limited in skill
- A group who is highly skilled can become complacent without the ability to think in adaptive and creative days.
- Today’s age allows more educated individuals with a wider skill set.
- Lateral advantage
- Human resources need to be valued and are often left behind in bureaucracy.
'''Pros:'''
- Create clarity and structure out of chaos – form follows function.
- Promotes efficiency, equality, focus large group activity into small set of goals
- Pigeonholing ends up with high quality workers, expertise, history, experience to perform their duties at an excellent level.
- Well designed structure, employees know the rules
- How do you hold a person accountable when they are flexible and not held accountable?
- Experts are highly valuable in their specified fields
- Helpful for the client to know that a structure is in place – gives them security and a chain of command.

'''Mintzberg'''

- An example was brought up with the search for the Deans of Arts and Sciences at W&M.
- Technical and administrative support is growing since Mintzberg wrote this article.
- Problems involved mirrored those we are dealing with now (i.e. SOLs)
- More movement, less loyal to the institution, more loyal to the profession
o Higher Ed. is more accepting to this notion than K-12
- How much do we actually know about what others are doing? How do we work together and how do we miss opportunities by not knowing what others are working on?

'''Second look at case study: Nose to the Grindstone: Hunkering Down Community College'''
- Financial issues are still at the forefront.
- Re-engineering of the whole organization was done by the new president.
- The president should be aware of past precedent and what was done and accepted in the past.
o Example was brought up of Jean Nichol – taking down the cross at Wren Hall
- Structural approach and authoritative approach are in place.
- Positivist approach also in place – there is one truth.
- There is a question of whether the president really had “buy-in”?
- The organization is very resistant to change – bureaucratic
- In trying to fix a problem, she created new ones.
- Her gender assumptions may have played a part in her actions – she felt the need to be aggressive to assert power.
- Communication needed to be better and more open.
- She was trying to create a professional bureaucracy – others were reluctant.

[[image:http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/40000/2000/800/42814/42814.strip.sunday.gif]]
Dilbert explains some problems with bureaucracy - missing the human element

==Summary of readings:==
{|
! '''Weber, M. ''(1946) Bureaucracy''''' '''Max Weber (1864-1920), written ~1900? (Published posthumously in ''Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft'' Part III in 1921 by his wife, Marianne)''' !! [[File:max_weber.jpg|179x228px]]
|-
|}
(Note on these notes: I present this more or less as an outline, as the structure of the document is, essentially, a fleshed-out outline with headings intact. The article has no preamble, no applicatory advice, and certainly no fluff; it is highly structured and all business. Weber evidently practiced what he preaches.)

===Part 1: Characteristics of Bureaucracy===
====='''I. There is a principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas'''=====
# Activities are distributed in a fixed way and bounded by rules
# Authority is distributed in a stable way and is bounded by rules, including powers of coercion
# Provision is made for execution of duties and rights; only the qualified are placed in a position

At the time of the writing (~1900?) Weber notes that bureaucracy only exists in "the most modern" governments and "the most advanced institutions of capitalism" in the private sector. Historically, of course, this has not been the case: even large empires have been run by favored tribunes, nepotism, and cronies with uncircumscribed powers.

====='''II. Principle of Hierarchy'''=====
"A firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher."
* 10 cent term: an organization that is structured by the One Boss principle is "monocratically organized."
* A bureaucracy is not characterized by being either public or private--the same systems work in either locale.
* "Higher" office is not authorized to "take over the business" of the "lower." "Indeed, the opposite is the rule."
* Once established, an office tends to continue, even when its duty is fulfilled.

'''III. The "modern" office based on written documents (files)'''
"There is, therefore, a staff or subaltern officials and scribes of all sorts."
* The official and the staff and files are what make up the eponymous "bureau," or, in the public sector, "the office."
* "...[B]ureaucracy segregates official activity as something distinct...." - separate from the official's personal home, finances, correspondence, etc. This practice has been developing since the Middle Ages.

====='''IV. "Office management presupposes expert training."'''=====
* Bureaucracy is a skill in and of itself, to be learned and valued.
=====V. "A fully-developed office demands the full working capacity of the official."=====
* Unlike what Weber seems to view as the old days when "official business was discharged as a secondary activity."
=====VI. Management of an office/bureau is guided by rules that are more or less stable, exhaustive, and learnable=====
* Knowing these rules is a skill in and of itself.

==Part 2. The Position of the Official==

'''I. "Office holding is a 'vocation.'"'''
* There are often stringent training requirements.
* The position is construed as a duty, not a position to be exploited for profit (quick, somebody tell Congress!), or even as a "job" for pay--it is acceptance of an obligation in return for a secure existence.
* The official's loyalty is to the enterprise, not to a patron 

'''II. The pattern for officialdom:'''
# The official is often of high social standing, but this is not always the case. (Note: Weber is almost disdainful of the American habit of elevating successful persons without regard to their formal education, bureaucratic indoctrination, or social status [probably because it is less orderly].)
# "Pure type" officials are appointed; even elected officials are appointed by party chiefs to run in the election. Appointed officials are more "technically correct" (in their performance) than elected officials, as appointees are, presumably, selected for prowess.
# Officials serve for life, for the sake of independence.
# Officials receive a salary during their tenure, and a pension in their old age.
# The official's "career" is within the hierarchy.

{|
|''' [[media type'''"youtube" key'''"uyTWKKnDw5o" height'''"315" width="560"]]
|-
|''' This video provides a brief explanation of Weber's theory of bureaucracy and presents some of the social issues associated with bureaucracy such as psychological problems and zombification.
|-
|}

'''Mintzberg, H. (1979). ''The Professional Bureaucracy'''''
{|
| [[File:Mintzberg.png|Henry]] || Professional bureaucracy is a structural configuration that focuses on standardization of skills. Because professional work is complex, it must be controlled directly by the operator (like a professor or a doctor). The standardization of skills allows standardization and decentralization at the same time! Prime examples of the Professional Bureaucracy – ''personal service organizations'' with complex, stable work: schools and universities, consulting firms, law and accounting offices, social work agencies, hospitals. These organizations depend on the skills and knowledge of the operating professionals (the “operating core”) to function. '''The Basic Structure''' '''The Work of the Operating Core''' – the professionals of this organization are specialists who have considerable control over their work (they work relatively independently of their colleagues, but closely with their clients). Example: professors work mostly alone on their classes and research, but work directly with their clients (students). Coordination is handled through the standardization of skills (which is what their colleagues have learned to expect from them). 
|-
|}

{|
| '''Standardization of skills''' (training) takes a long time – years. The skills become repetitive (like a surgeon knowing how to perform open-heart surgery). What is involved in the training and indoctrination? # First, initial training at a university or special program. Hence the skills and knowledge of the profession are formally “programmed” into the future professional (p. 51) # On-the-job training (internship) – close supervision by someone in the profession # Professional proficiency test (like a Bar exam, dissertation, accounting exam) # Upgrade expertise through journal reading, attending conferences, formal retraining (see youtube video on training and specialized skills to the extreme). || [[media type'''"youtube" key'''"gZQS01diLLA" height'''"212" width="419"]]
|-
|}
'''The Bureaucratic Nature of the Structure''' – one goal of all the training: “internalization” of standards that serve the client. These standards are predetermined through professional associations, which set universal standards. Universities must teach these standards to the future professionals (like K-12 or HE administration).

'''The Pigeonholing Process''' – Professionals have certain expertise and the clients’ needs must fit that expertise (pigeonholing). The professional has 2 tasks: 1) to categorize the client’s need in terms of a contingency (predetermined situation, or a “diagnosis”) and to 2) apply that program. 

'''Focus on the Operating Core''' – The operating core is the key part of the Professional Bureaucracy. Example of a university: The support staff__ is fully elaborated, but also focused on serving the operating core. The other two parts, the __technostructure__ (like finance and budgeting) and __middle line (managers, deans) are thin. 

'''Decentralization in the Professional Bureaucracy''' – the Professional Bureaucracy is decentralized in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. The operating core has the power. The operating core’s power comes from the fact that the work is too complex to be supervised by managers, but the work is in demand. 

'''The Administrative Structure''' – the professionals seek control of the administrative decisions that affect them (hiring, firing, distributing resources). Therefore, the professionals need control of the middle line (the administrators, managers). How is this done? The professionals are part of the hiring process – they staff the organization with “their own” (p. 56). Deans, VPs, chairs, have to work alongside a committee of faculty.

What is described above is different from the PROFESSIONAL administrators – these are not as powerless as what you see described above. Although the professional administrator does not directly control the professional, he/she “does perform a series of roles that gives considerable indirect power” (p. 58). Those roles are to handle disturbances in the structure (who teaches this biology class? Who should perform that open-heart surgery?) and to serve key roles between the professionals and the outside world (governments, clients). 

'''Strategy Formulation in the Professional Bureaucracy''' – this is different for the Professional Bureaucracy because it is not so much an organizational strategy, but an individual (personal) strategy held by the professionals, like which clients to serve and how. The strategy has to coincide with professional standards. What’s the administrator’s role in helping the professional with these personal strategies? The administrator helps the professional “negotiate his project through the system” (p. 61). 

'''Conditions of the Professional Bureaucracy – '''
* The environment is the chief contingency factor. The environment must be complex (complex enough to require the skills used by the professionals) and stable (stable enough to standardize the skills). 
* Age and size – not so important – professionals bring their expertise with them. Example: Doctors would do the same kind of work in a big hospital as in a small hospital. 
* Technical system is not highly regulating or automated. 

'''Some Issues Associated with Professional Bureaucracy'''

'''Problems of Coordination''' – need of coordination between professional and support staff. Need to coordinate between professionals – this is where pigeonholing becomes a problem. What happens to the patient who falls between psychiatry and internal medicine? (p. 65) 

'''Problems of Discretion''' – not all professionals are conscientious and competent. Since their work is so specialized, it is not always easy to regulate them. Furthermore, professional associations are reluctant to act against their own. 

'''Problems of Innovation''' – innovation requires a rearrangement of the pigeonholing AND cooperation with other disciplines. New problems are sometimes forced into old pigeonholes. Innovation requires inductive reasoning and it goes against the way the professional works (with lots of autonomy). 

When the above 3 problems happen, there can be a '''dysfunctional response''' – external forces (government, clients) try to control the work with direct supervision, standardization of work processes, or standardization of output (Example: SOLs). Complex work is most effective when it’s controlled by the operator; external forces can dampen the professional conscientiousness and innovation. 

----
{|
| '''Dill, D. (1984). //The Nature of Administrative Behavior''''' '''''in Higher Education''''' In this article, Dill reviews research and literature on administrative behavior that developed due to a rapid growth of American higher education after World War II. The review was prompted by three publications: || [[File:DDD_3x5.jpg|97x125px|David]]
|-
|}
* Peterson (1974) - extant review of the research literature on the organization and administration of higher education
''' Addressed colleges and universities as organizations
''' Identified and reviewed growing literature on planning and management techniques in higher education
''' Identified that the weakness of literature was due to the lack of empirical studies on administrative behavior or on what administrators actually did
* March (1974) - training of higher education administrators should be based on knowledge of the context of education
''' Knowledge should include the nature of education organizations and what educational managers actually do
''' Administrative efforts are difficult to improve since they are often unrelated to the ordinary organization and conduct of administrative life
* Mintzberg (1973) - ''The Nature of Managerial Work''
''' Original investigations and codification of existing research showed consistent patterns in managerial work
''' Patterns went against existing models of administrative behavior that emphasized the rational process of planning, organizing, and controlling
''' Research raised questions of whether or not the successful implementation of technologies and processes advocated for contemporary managers was seriously compromised by a failure to understand the nature of managerial work itself
'''administrative behavior''' - the behavior of those within the boundaries of organizations who occupy administrative positions
Katz's general managerial framework is linked with Mintzberg's empirically-derived categories.
[[File:http://www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/journal/v5/n3/images/2210082i1.gif|x238px|right]]

{|
|''' '''Katz''' ||''' '''Mintzberg'''
|-
| Human Relations Skills || * Peer-related Behavior * Leadership Behavior * Conflict-resolution Behavior
|-
| Conceptual Skills || * Information-related Behavior * Decision-making Behavior * Resource Allocation Behavior * Entrepreneurial Behavior * Introspective Behavior
|-
| Technical Skills || * Profession-related Behavior
|-
|}
'''Managerial Time in Academia'''
College administrators allocate time similarly to managers of large organizations. College presidents work an average of 60 hours/week, which is at the high end of the scale. However, like managers in other fields, they spend similar amounts of time around their office (30%), in the vicinity of the university (60%), an out of town (22%). They also spend similar amounts of time in contact with others: 1/3 with those outside the organization, less than 10% with trustees, and over 50% with subordinates. Additionally, they spend similar amounts of time alone (25%) and in meetings (40%).
Deans and department heads work an average of 55 hours/week, with 45% of time spent in on administrative work, 9% on research, 16% teaching, and 20% or more in university service. Deans and department heads rate administrative duties as their highest stressor and report that the greatest way to reduce stress would be increasing the hours per week devoted to management.

'''Human Relations Skill'''
'''Peer-Related Behavior''': About 30% of college presidents' time was spent with constituents who were not direct subordinates.
Separation of powers:
* Decision-making authority is perceived to reflect a separation of powers.
* Separate administrative culture derives from the specialization of administrative tasks, the nature of associations (with trustees, alumni, and legislature), the visibility and prestige of executive status, and the burden of conveying bad news.
* Department heads have a great deal of influence on personnel decisions, faculty selection and evaluation, salary decisions, dismissal and non-reappointment of faculty, and budget administration.
* Faculty have more influence on student admissions policies, departmental academic standards, and the selection and recruitment of graduate students.
* To reduce separation, managers must build channels of communication and support through informal communication with constituents and use of special assistants drawn from the faculty at large. These "colleague" special assistants are the most influential of all "assistant to" types and serve in a role that is unique to higher education.
'''Leadership Behavior''': The largest block of university presidents' time is spent in contact with direct subordinates, which is perceived as important to administrative success and satisfaction. Job satisfaction is higher when interpersonal behaviors are emphasized over authority relationships.
Faculty attitudes towards department heads:
* Rate satisfaction higher for leaders emphasizing ethical behavior, helpfulness i research projects, accurate and complete communication, frequency of communication, and willingness to represent the interests of the staff

* Prefer tracking research activities in progress through discussion rather than formal reports
* Dislike attempts to restrict the selection of research projects
* Prefer leader to be a "resource person/coordinator" or "facilitator" - one who smoothes out problems and provides necessary resources for research activities
* Support attempts to reward them
Though there may not be an "ideal style" of leadership, highly ranked paradigmatic departments like physics and chemistry tend to have task-oriented leaders, while lesser ranked paradigmatic departments such as sociology and political science are characterized by task- and people-oriented leaders.
'''Conflict Resolution Behavior:''' disputes tend to be avoided or muted across all personnel categories - academic administrators, faculty, non-faculty, professionals, and ancillary personnel, as well as community versus institutional personnel. The nature of disputes tended to vary among constituencies:
* Non-professional personnel tended to have conflicts of interest.
* Faculty and administrators generally had value conflicts.
* Administrative disputes were usually settled through compromise or resignation after due consideration.
* Compromise was less common among non-administrators.
* Administrators assumed third party role in conflicts involving other parties, though not as mediators. This was most common in ancillary personnel disputes.
* Administrators tended to impose new arrangements to terminate controversy among ancillary personnel.
* Administrators attempted to optimize the needs of both parties while observing institutional priorities with non-faculty professionals, which disputants saw as another aspect of the conflict.
* The most commonly used conflict management technique was bargaining or splitting differences in an attempt to maximize one's own interest. The second most used technique smoothing or letting people discuss issues in which differences existed without dealing with substantive issues.
* Academic conflict resolution behavior is dramatically different from that in the industrial setting, which most commonly uses confrontation and forcing or power plays.

'''Conceptual Skills'''

'''Information-Related Behavior:''' the most important information is political information, informal knowledge of constituent attitudes, and academic knowledge. Less important is everyday knowledge of operating information - administrators typically have a 6%-8% error in knowledge of enrollment, faculty size, and finances/budgets. Presidents are most accurate on student-related data and least accurate on faculty data. They most over estimate revenues. Some other notable facts about administrators' information-related behaviors:
* When administrators provide information to guide operational decision-making, it was usually only limited to a due date, guidelines for report format, and individual or group responsibilities.
* While information is critical to administrators, sources and uses of information are unconventional compared to traditional management.
* Administrators' attitudes towards qualitative data varies greatly, though there are three typical responses:
''' Use data available on the spur of the moment
''' Use interpreters who can understand and translate existing information
''' Create parochial or local level information systems
* Administrators tend to value information that has no great decision relevance.
'''Decision-Making Behavior:''' as institutions grow and age, decentralization of decision making increases. This is particularly true when growth is accompanied by an increase in academic specialization.
Characteristics of decision-making behavior in college administrators:
* Culture, including local traditions, beliefs, and values, may be a better predictor of locus of decision making than structural variables.
* Decision-making behavior can be influenced by level in hierarchy, distribution of influence, and personal perceptions and attitudes.
* There is little relationship between the nature of the problem and the style of decision making.
* Business techniques are not often used in university decision making.
* In budget and program evaluation decisions, current demand - demonstrated by academic need - is usually the exclusive criteria.
* Patterns of university decision-making somewhat supports the "garbage can" model:
''' Decision making frequently does not resolve problems.
''' Choices are often made by flight or oversight.
''' Decisions are of intermediate importance.
''' Demographic factors, influence, personality, beliefs, and technology can affect decision making.
'''Resource-Allocation Behavior:''' administrators base resource allocation on perceptions of influence and power. Power, measured by the ability to attract grants and contracts and student enrollments)is the de facto administrative criterion for allocation of scarce resources. Allocation of financial resources is among the highest current priority for change. facilities allocations are usually based on a presidential wish list, and there is little use of class size, teaching load standards, or unit costs in allocation of faculty positions and discretionary budgets.
'''Entrepreneurial Behavior:''' managers search their organizations for problems or opportunities for change, then initiate improvement projects to address them. There are two critical assumptions of Mintzberg's analysis:
# The manager is constantly involved in developing and implementing improvement projects and is juggling a number of such projects at one time.
# Many improvement projects fail or lead to no implementable result.
'''Introspective Behavior:''' managers need the capacity thoroughly understand their jobs; they should be sensitive to their own impact on their organizations, and they should have the ability to learn by introspection. Professionals learn little from seminars and continuing professional education opportunities; they are most influenced by learning that takes place in conjunction with the job. Academic administrators at the department head and dean levels either resist, deny, or do not fully comprehend the obligations of their administrative duties.
Administrators perceptions of control:
* If administrators perceived themselves in control or as making the major decisions, they spent more time in guiding the growth and development of the department as well as its personnel and programs, and had a greater desire to continue in administration.
* If administrators perceived control to be above them, they typically spent more time working with students, in doing liaison work, and in activities with expected return to the faculty.

'''Technical Skills'''
'''Profession-Related Behavior:''' According to Mintzberg, the transition fro technical activity to management activity allows for a separation of management behavior from profession-related behavior. However, this transition is rarely completed in the academic environment.

----

=[[image:Reframing%204th%20cover.jpeg width="82" height="119" align="left"]]=

'''Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). ''Reframing Organizations:'''''
'''''Structure and Restructuring'''''

=='''1. Structural Dilemmas'''==
====''“Tough trade-offs without easy answers”. (p. 73)''====
* '''Differentiation versus Integration''': The more complex an organization, the harder it is to maintain focus.
* '''Gap versus Overlap''': If roles are too segregated, then certain tasks can fall through the cracks. If roles are too closely aligned, then conflict can arise due to lack of role delineation.
* '''Underuse versus Overload''': If employees have too little work, they become bored and can be counterproductive. If employees have too much work, morale and quality of work can suffer.
* '''Lack of Clarity versus Lack of Creativity''': If employees are unclear about what they are supposed to do, they will focus on personal comfort rather than company goals when completing tasks. If employees are too rigidly focused on company goals, their work will lose creativity and the end product will suffer.
* '''Excessive Autonomy versus Excessive Interdependence''': If employees are too autonomous, people can feel isolated and unsupported. If employees are too tightly linked, people can be distracted from work and waste time on unnecessary coordination.
* '''Too Loose versus Too Tight''': If an organization is too loose, people will get lost in their work with no sense of purpose or direction. If an organization is too tight, flexibility is stifled.
* '''Goalless versus Goalbound''': If employees are unaware of company goals, their work may be misdirected. If employees cling too tightly to company goals, the employees may be adverse to change or difference that could positively affect the company.
* '''Irresponsible versus Unresponsive''': If people ignore company policy, performance suffers. If people adhere too rigidly to company policy, performance can also suffer.

=='''2. Structural Configurations'''==
=====''Mintzberg designed visualizations to demonstrate the size and clout of five separate groups as they take form in five different structural configurations. These five groups are:''=====

* [[image:picture_Mintzberg.jpeg width="264" height="219" align="right" caption="This image includes a sixth part: Ideology. How does ideology affect an organization's structural configuration?"]]
> ====='''Operating Core''' – Depicted at the base of each image, the operating core consists of people who perform “essential work” by providing goods or services to consumers such as flight crews in airlines and teachers in schools. =====
* '''Administrative Component''' – Depicted directly above the operating core, these are managers who supervise, coordinate, and control the operators, such as school principals. This portion of the image includes the '''Middle Line''', which are mid-level managers, and the high-located '''Strategic Apex''', or the most senior directors.
* '''Technostructure''' – Depicted to the left of the Administrative Component, this inclusides specialists, technicians, and analysts who standardize, measure, and inspect outputs and procedures.
* '''Support Staff''' – Depicted to the right of the Administrative Component, this group supports the work of others in the organization, such as secretaries or custodians.

==='''Simple Structure'''===
====''A “Mom and Pop” structure which consists of only two levels: the strategic apex and the operating level. This structure is characterized by:''====
* Direct supervision
* Flexibility and adaptability
* Issues with leadership being too closely involved with operating core, causing for distraction by low-level problems.

==='''[[media type="youtube" key="meOa7BQE15c" height="251" width="336" align="right"]]Machine Bureaucracy''' ===
====''Like with McDonalds, a strategic apex makes major decisions and is kept very separate from operating core, with a large middle line, technostructure, and support staff. This structure is characterized by:''====
* Efficiency and effectiveness for routine tasks such as making hamburgers or manufacturing automobiles
* Consistency and uniformity
* Tension between middle line and strategic apex
======''Example: In CBS's Undercover Boss, members of the Strategic Apex spend a day moonlighting as the Operating Core.''======

==='''Professional Bureaucracy''' ===
=====''Like within a school, there is a flat structure that consists of a very large operating core with few managerial levels existing between the strategic apex and the operators. There is a large support staff with a very small technostructure. Because the operating core is so large, operators generally perform with little to no direction from leadership, like university professors. This structure is characterized by:''=====
* A heavy reliance on training and indoctrination
* Relative amount of freedom for a large operating core
* Slow response to change
* Contention between operating core and strategic apex

==='''Divisionalized Form''' ===
=====''Like at a university, the majority of the work is done in semi-autonomous units. Each division serves a distinct market and supports its own functional units. This structure is characterized by:''=====
* Plenty of resources
* Power associated with a large-scale organization
* Contentions between divisions and strategic apex

==='''Adhocracy'''===
=====''Loose, flexible structure with ambiguous authority. Most often found in conditions of turbulence and rapid change. This structure is characterized by:''=====
* Unclear objectives
* Contradictory assignments of responsibility
* Protection from organization taking a position in an “either-or” trap.

====='''Helgeson’s Web of Inclusion'''=====
=====''An organic architectural form that is more circular than hierarchal. The web builds from the center out, with connections being formed between the center and the periphery. This structure is characterized by:''=====
* Entire organization affected when action occurs in one place on the web
* Requires strong center and periphery
* Strong community and culture

=='''3. Generic Restructuring Issues:'''==
* The '''strategic apex''' wants to develop a unified mission or strategy so that the organization is easier to control[[image:mintzberg_3by.gif width"182" height="169" align="right"]]=====
* The '''middle managers''' seek the opposite of the strategic apex: they want to become less centralized and gain more control over smaller units.
* The '''technostructure''' wants to standardize so that the organization’s progress can be measured using well-defined criteria
* The '''support staff''' wants collaboration so that they can have a stronger influence in the organization

=='''4. Why Restructure?''' ==
* Environment Shifts
* Technology Changes
* Organizations Grow
* Leadership Changes

=='''5. Principles of Successful Structural Change''':[[media type="youtube" key="pDvP4AtwD2M" height="283" width="378" align="right"]]==
* Reconceptualize the organization’s goals and strategies
* Study the existing structure and process so that you fully understand how things work
* Design a new structure in response to changes in goals, technology, and environment
* Experiment. Keep things that work, and discard things that do not.
''Example: In Bravo's Tabatha's Salon Takeover, outspoken Tabatha Coffey visits failing salons and helps them to restructure. The above four principles can be seen in her efforts to improve the organizations.''

{|
|''' [[media type'''"youtube" key'''"YBCAlZPF0D0" height'''"237" width'''"313"]] | |''' ||''' "Oh, I forgot, class is over! It was just too much fun!" (Eddy, 2012) [[File:Quoteoftheday.jpg|252x182px|center]]
|-
|}

For further reading:
Olson, G. (2011). "If I Only Knew Then..." from the Chronicle of Higher Education - call for higher education administrators to buck the strict bureaucracy and foster innovation and change.
[[:File:If Only I Knew Then.docx]]
Goldstein, H., Thorp, B. (2010). How to create a problem-solving institution (and avoid organizational silos) from the Chronicle of Higher Education - good advice for restructuring and keeping an eye on mission.
[[:File:Thorp- Goldstein 2010 How to Create a Problem-solving institution.docx]]

Cressey, D. (1958). Contradictory directives in complex organizations: The case of the prison. Great description of prisons as machine bureaucracies and professional bureaucracies - suggested by Mintzberg.
[[:File:Cressey 1958 Prison administration - professional bureaucracy.pdf]]

[[image:safe_image.gif align="center"]]