DESIGNING INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS

Presented by J. B. Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) for the class (Organizational Design) of Dr. S. K. Kim at Chonnam National University, South Korea. 2010

 

SUMMARY

 

Key terms:

·         design

·         specialization

·         formalization

·         training

·         indoctrination

 

According to Herbert Simon (1969), the essence of man-made sciences – whether engineering, medicine, or management – is design. Design assumes discretion, an ability to alter a system. In the case of organizational structure, design means turning knobs that influence the division of labor and the coordinating mechanisms, thereby affecting how the organization functions. As shown in Table 2-1 (page 27), there are nine design parameters specified. Design parameters are the basic components of organizational structure. In this chapter, it talks about job specialization, behavior formalization, and training and indoctrination.


A.      Jobs specialization

Jobs can be specialized into ‘breadth’ or ‘scope’ and ‘depth’. “Breadth” involves how many different tasks are contained in each and how broad or narrow is each of these tasks. At one extreme, the worker can be jack-of-all-trades and at other extreme, he focuses his work on the same highly specialized task. It is also called horizontal job specialization and its opposite, horizontal job enlargement. “Depth” involves control over the work. At other times, the worker just merely do the work while at other times, he completely controls the work in addition to doing it. Depth is also called vertical job specialization and vertical job enlargement.

1.       Horizontal job specialization – it is the predominant form of division of labor, an inherent part of every organization, indeed every human activity. Adam Smith in his ‘The Wealth of Nations’ showed that even in 1776, division of labor has been very often taken notice of as proven by the trade of the pin maker. Horizontal specialization focuses the attention of the worker by repetition while facilitating standardization and learning. In the end, it allows the individual to be matched to the task.

2.       Vertical job specialization – it separates the performance of the work from the administration of it. Organizations specialized jobs in the vertical dimension in the belief that a different perspective is required to determine how the work should be done.

3.       Job enlargement – it creates a number of its own problems, notably of communication and coordination. As an example, in the case of taking orders in French and American restaurants, different approaches apply. The work in many French restaurants is more specialized: the head waiter takes the order and writes it on a slip of paper, and the waiter serves it. In an American restaurant, the waiter generally does both tasks. Thus is the customer in the French restaurant has a special request – for example, to have his coffee with his desert instead of after is as is the norm in France – a communication problem arises. In effect, specialization creates problems in coordination as cited in this example. But when it comes to more complex work, specialization has also been a mixed blessing as an example to that of a surgeon.

a.       In horizontal job enlargement, the worker engages in a wide variety of the tasks associated with producing products and services.

b.      In vertical job enlargement, not only does the worker carry out more tasks but he also gains more control over them.

 

Job enlargement (horizontal) and job enrichment (vertical) is subsumed under the broader title, ‘Quality of working life or QWL” (Herzberg, 1968). For simplicity’s sake, “job enlargement” is describing both horizontal and vertical. The results of job enlargement clearly depend on the job in question. There is also tradeoffs (Worthy) introducing human factor into the performance equation, thus, job enlargement pays to the extent that gains from better-motivated workers in a particular job offset the losses from less than optimal technical specialization. On the part of some workers (Stud Turkel’s ‘Working’, 1972), they prefer narrowly specialized, repetitive jobs. Some people get motivated and alienated in a routine job because of certain factors in the environment. Like Maslow’s (1954) “Needs Hierarchy Theory” which orders human needs into a hierarchy of five groups – physiological, safety or security, love and belongingness, esteem or status, and self-actualization. In job design, people who prefer specialized jobs are those most concerned with security needs and the like while people who prefer enlarged jobs are those who want self-actualization. In here, the equation continues to change.

 

4.       Job specialization by part of the organization – the vertical and horizontal job specialization as a function of the part of the organization is indicated in the table below:

 

		Horizontal Specialization
		High	Low
Vertical Specialization	High	Unskilled jobs (operating core and staff units)	Certain lowest-level managerial jobs
	Low	Professional jobs (operating core and staff units)	All other managerial jobs

Unskilled workers are those who perform the narrowest of jobs both in breadth and depth. Thus, they are subject to close control. Professional workers are those doing complex jobs and they are specialized horizontally but not vertically. Managerial jobs perform varied works and sometimes they lack the opportunity to concentrate on certain issues but direct supervision over them is not of great importance.

 

B.      Behavior formalization

This parameter represents the organization’s way of proscribing the discretion of its members, essentially of standardizing their work processes (David Hickson, 1966-67). Behavior may be formalized in three basic ways:

a.    By the position – specifications being attached to the job itself, as in a job description;

b.   By the work flow – specifications being attached to the work, as in the case of a printing-order docket; and

c.    By rules – specification being issued in general, as in the various regulations – everything from dress to the use of forms – contained in so-called policy manuals.

 

Formalization of behavior leads to vertical specializations of jobs and is also related to horizontal specification. Reasons for formalization of behavior are the following:

a.     It reduces variability, ultimately to predict and control it;

b.   It also used to attain precise and carefully predetermined coordination of work;

c.    It is also used to ensure the machinelike consistency that leads to efficient production; and

d.   It is also used to ensure fairness to clients.

 

Bureaucratic and organic forms of structure

Organizations that rely primarily on the formalization of behavior to achieve coordination are generally referred to as bureaucracies. An organization is bureaucratic when the behavior is predetermined or predictable, in effect standardized whether by work processes, outputs, skills and whether or not centralized. The word bureaucracy is derived from the French word ‘bureau’ meaning ‘desk’ or ‘office’. Max Weber, the great German sociologist, used it at the turn of the century to describe a particular type of organizational structure. He described bureaucracy as an ‘ideal type’ though not perfect but pure. Below are the characteristics of a pure structural type of an organization:

 

I.        There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations.

1.    The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a fixed way as official duties.

2.    The authority to give the commands required for the discharge of these duties is distributed in a stable way and is strictly delimited by ruled concerning the coercive means, physical, sacerdotal, or otherwise which may be placed at the disposal of the officials.

3.    Methodical provision is made for the regular and continuous fulfillment of these duties and for the execution of the corresponding rights; only persons who have the generally regulated qualification to serve are employed.

 

II.      The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of graded authority mean a firmly ordered system of super- and subordinate is which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones.

 

III.    The management of the modern office is based upon written documents (the files), which are preserved in their original or draught form.

 

IV.    Office management, at least all specialized office management–and such management is distinctly modern–usually presupposes thorough and expert training.

 

V.      The management of the office follows general rules, which are more or less stable, more or less exhaustive, and which can be learned. Knowledge of these rules represents a special technical learning which the officials possess. It involves jurisprudence, or administrative or business management. (Gerth and Mills, 1958:196-98)

 

Organic structure is defined by the absence of standardization in the organization. They are characterized by flexible working arrangements, basing their coordination on mutual adjustment or direct supervision.

 

Some dysfunctions of highly formalized structures

Basically, the cause of dysfunctions is primarily because of psychological and physiological problems for many workers (Hawthorne). The consequences take various forms: ossification of behavior, automatic rejection of all innovative ideas, mistreatment of clients, absenteeism, high turnover, strikes, and subversion of the operations of the organization.

Michael Crozier (1964) looked also into these issues too in the context of two French government bureaucracies but came up with some very different results. In the first one, rules were favored by the operators which their managers have limited arbitrary power over them. In effect, everyone in the organization was treated equally because the set rules controls everyone. In the second one, it proved that rules and central authority could not regulate quite everything. A few areas of uncertainty had to remain in which people who could deal with uncertainties achieved great influence.

 

Behavior formalization by part of the organization

One key relationship is: the more stable and repetitive the work, the more programmed it is and the more bureaucratic that part of the organization that contains it. Behavior formalization is most common in the operating core of the organization which affects the middle line managers closest to the operating core. At the strategic apex, the work is least programmed so it is expected a highly organic condition (according to a study from McGill University). In the support staff, formalization depends on the work to be done and the boundary conditions it will face. In the technostructure, those close to the operating core tend to be more formalized. Sometimes, organizations set up independent work constellations to do special tasks which are opposite to bureaucratic and organic structures.

 

C.      Training and indoctrination

The intention of this is to ensure that the jobholder develops the necessary behaviors before beginning to work. Training refers to the process by which job-related skills and knowledge are taught. Indoctrination is the process by which organizational norms are acquired. Both amount to the internalization of accepted patterns of behavior in the workers.

1.       Training

Ø  When a body of knowledge and a set of work skills are highly rationalized, the organization factors them into simple, easily learned jobs. In this case, the unskilled ones will easily learn the job and then relies on the formalization of behavior to achieve coordination. Like in an automobile industry, training is an insignificant design parameter which takes place in the first few hours on many jobs.

Ø  When a job entails a body of knowledge and a set of skills that are both complex and nonrationalized, the worker must spend a great deal of time learning them. In this case, the worker assumes the role of ‘apprentice’ under a ‘master’ and this kind of work is referred to as ‘craft’ because the training is not recorded as formal knowledge.

Ø  When a body of knowledge has been recorded and the required skills have – in part at least – been specified, the individual can be trained before beginning work. This kind of work is referred to as ‘professional’ because it is recorded and specified. Training is a key design parameter in all work we call professional. The ‘specification’ of knowledge and skills is synonymous with the ‘standardization’ of it. Therefore, training is the design parameter for the exercise of the coordinating mechanism that we have called the standardization of skills. Professionals are trained over a long period of time, before they assume their position. This training takes place outside the organization, often in a university. Professional training must generally be followed by some kind of on-the-job apprenticeship before the person is considered fully trained.

 

2.       Indoctrination

Ø  It is the label used for the design parameter by which the organization formally socializes its members for its own benefit.  Socialization refers to the process by which a new member learns the value system, the norms, and the required behavior patterns of the society, organization, or group which he is entering (Schein, 1968:3).

Ø  Organizations allow some indoctrination to take place outside their own boundaries, as part of professional training, like in the university. But much socialization is related to the ‘culture’ of the specific organization, indoctrination is largely a responsibility of the organization itself.

Ø  In-house indoctrination programs are particularly important where jobs are sensitive or remote. It takes place before the person starts the job to ensure that he or she is sufficiently socialized to exhibit the desired behavior. Apprenticeship programs generally contain good dose of indoctrination along with the training but some organizations design programs solely for the purposes of indoctrination.

 

Training and indoctrination by part of the organization

In any part of the organization, training is most important where jobs are complex, involving difficult, yet specified skills and sophisticated recorded bodies of knowledge – jobs essentially professional in nature. Indoctrination is also most important where jobs are sensitive or remote, and where the culture and ideology of the organization demand a strong loyalty to it.

In the operating core, staff units and technocratic structure, training and indoctrination are also used extensively. In the middle line and the strategic apex, the work is certainly complex, but it is not well understood, and so formal training is not important. This is because their work is craft; they learn it by observation and by working with masters. Thus, training is not yet considered a major design parameter at the strategic apex and in the middle line. Indoctrination plays a more important role in the managerial ranks since they are the guardians of the organization’s ideology. Many large organizations rotate their managers frequently.

 

Relating the Position Design Parameters

Specialization, formalization, and training and indoctrination are completely independent design parameters. In essence, two fundamentally different kinds of positions are unskilled and professional. Unskilled because the work is highly rationalized with extensive specialization in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions, and it is often coordinated and controlled by direct formalization of behavior. Professional because the work is complex, it cannot easily be specialized in the vertical dimension of formalized by the organization’s technostructure.

Formalization and training are basically substitutes. Depending on the work in question, the organization can either control it directly through its own procedures and rules, or else achieve indirect control by hiring duly trained professionals.

The professional organization surrenders a good deal of control over its choice of workers as well as their methods of work to the outside institutions that train and certify them and thereafter set standards that guide them in the conduct of their work. Professionalism and bureaucracy can coexist in the same structure.

 

Reference:
Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 25-44