Читать книгу Reframing Organizations - Lee G. Bolman - Страница 89

Restructuring is a challenging process that consumes time and resources with no guarantee of success, as the BBC case at the beginning of the chapter illustrates. Organizations typically embark on that path when they feel compelled to respond to major problems or opportunities. Various pressures can lead to that conclusion:

 The environment shifts. For Ma Bell (American Telephone & Telegraph), once the telephone company for most of the United States, a mandated shift from regulated monopoly to a market with multiple competitors required a massive reorganization that played out over decades. When AT&T split off its local telephone companies into regional “Baby Bells,” few anticipated that eventually one of the children (Southwest Bell) would swallow up the parent and appropriate its identity.

 Technology changes. The aircraft industry's shift from piston to jet engines profoundly affected the relationship between engine and airframe. Some established firms faltered because they underestimated the complexities; Boeing rose to lead the industry because it understood the issues (Henderson and Clark, 1990).

 Organizations grow. Digital Equipment thrived with a very informal and flexible structure during the company's early years, but the same structure produced major problems when it grew into a multibillion‐dollar corporation.

 Leadership changes. Reorganization is often the first initiative of new leaders. It is a way for them to try to put their stamp on the organization, even if no one else sees a need to restructure.

Miller and Friesen (1984) studied a sample of successful as well as troubled firms undergoing structural change and found that those in trouble typically fell into one of three configurations:

 The impulsive firm: A fast‐growing organization, controlled by one individual or a few top people, in which structure and controls have become too primitive and the firm is increasingly out of control. Profits may fall precipitously, and survival may be at stake. Many once‐successful entrepreneurial organizations stumble at this stage because they have failed to evolve beyond their simple structure.

 The stagnant bureaucracy: An older, tradition‐dominated organization with an obsolete product line. A predictable and placid environment has lulled everyone to sleep, and top management is slavishly committed to old ways. Management thinking is too rigid or information systems are too primitive to detect the need for change, and lower‐level managers feel ignored and alienated. Many old‐line corporations and public agencies fit into this group of faltering machine bureaucracies.

 The headless giant: A loosely coupled, divisional organization that has turned into a collection of feudal baronies. The administrative strategic apex is weak, and most of the initiative and power resides in autonomous divisions. With little strategy or leadership at the top, the firm is adrift. Collaboration is minimal because departments compete for resources. Decision making is reactive and crisis‐oriented. WorldCom is an example of how bad things can get in this situation. CEO Bernie Ebbers built the company rapidly from a tiny start‐up in Mississippi to a global telecommunications giant through some sixty‐five acquisitions. But

for all its talent in buying competitors, the company was not up to the task of merging them. Dozens of conflicting computer systems remained, local network systems were repetitive and failed to work together properly, and billing systems were not coordinated. “Don't think of WorldCom the way you would of other corporations,” said one person who has worked with the company at a high level for many years. “It's not a company, it's just a bunch of disparate pieces. It's simply dysfunctional.” (Eichenwald, 2002, p. C‐6)

Miller and Friesen (1984) found that even in troubled organizations, structural change is episodic: long periods of little change are followed by brief episodes of major restructuring. Organizations are reluctant to make major changes because a stable structure reduces confusion and uncertainty, maintains internal consistency, and protects the existing equilibrium. The price of stability is a structure that grows increasingly misaligned with the environment. Eventually, the gap gets so big that a major overhaul is inevitable. Restructuring, in this view, is like spring cleaning: we accumulate debris over months or years until we are finally forced to face up to the mess.