Reframing Organizations - Lee G. Bolman

Скачать книгу

they often do. Similar effects have been replicated in countless reorganizations, new product launches, and new approaches to performance appraisal. All these examples show how hard it is to disentangle reality from the models in our minds.1

      Because organizations are complex, surprising, deceptive, and ambiguous, they are formidably difficult to comprehend and manage. Our preconceived theories, models, and images determine what we see, what we do, and how we judge what we accomplish. Narrow, oversimplified mental models become fallacies that cloud rather than illuminate managerial action. The world of most managers and administrators is a world of messes: complexity, ambiguity, value dilemmas, political pressures, and multiple constituencies. For managers whose images blind them to important parts of this messy reality, it is a world of frustration and failure. For those with better theories and the intuitive capacity to use them with skill and grace, it is a world of excitement and possibility. A mess can be defined as both a troublesome situation and a group of people who eat together regularly. The core challenge of leadership is to move an organization from the former to something more like the latter.

      1 1. These examples all show thinking influencing reality. A social constructivist perspective goes a step further to say that our thinking constructs social reality. In this view, an organization exists not “out there” but in the minds and actions of its constituents. This idea is illustrated in an old story about a dispute among three baseball umpires. The first says, “Some's balls, and some's strikes, and I calls ’em like they are.” The second counters, “No, you got it wrong. Some's balls, and some's strikes, and I calls ’em the way I sees them.” The third says, “You guys don't really get it. Some's balls, and some's strikes, but they ain't nothin' until I call ’em.” The first umpire is a realist who believes that what he sees is exactly what is. The second recognizes that reality is influenced by his own perception. The third is the social constructivist—his call makes them what they are. This distinction is particularly important in the symbolic frame, which we return to in Chapter 12.

      A frame is a coherent set of ideas or beliefs forming a prism or lens that enables you to see and understand more clearly what's going on in the world around you. In Part Two, we embark on the first stage of a tour that will take us to four very different ways of making sense of life, at work or elsewhere. Each frame will be presented in three chapters: one that introduces the basic concepts and two that focus on key applications and extensions. We begin with one of the oldest and most popular ways of thinking about organizations: the structural frame.

      If someone asked you to describe your organization—your workplace, your school, or even your family—what image would come to mind? A likely possibility is a traditional organization chart: a series of boxes and lines depicting job responsibilities and levels. The chart might be shaped roughly like a pyramid, with a small number of bosses at the top and a much larger number of employees at the bottom. Such a chart is only one of many images that reflect the structural view. The frame is rooted in traditional rational images but goes much deeper to develop versatile and powerful ways to understand social architecture and its consequences.

      In Chapter 4, we turn to issues of structural change and redesign. We describe basic structural tensions, explore alternatives to consider when new circumstances require revisions, and discuss challenges of the restructuring process. We compare traditional organization charts with “Mintzberg's Fives,” a more abstract rendering of structural alternatives. We close the chapter with examples of successful structural change.

      Finally, in Chapter 5, we apply structural concepts to groups and teams. When teams work poorly, members often blame one another for problems that reflect design flaws rather than individual failings. We begin with Seal Team Six's operation to track down Osama bin Laden. We examine structural options in five‐person teams and then contrast the games of baseball, American football, and basketball to show how optimal structure depends on what a team is trying to do and under what conditions. We close by examining the architectural design of high‐performance teams.

      Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up.

      —A. A. Milne

      Consider the smooth flow of an eight‐oar racing crew. Shells skim along the Charles River like a highly choreographed ballet group performing Swan Lake. To a coxswain's cadence, eight oars at exactly 90 degrees enter the water in unison. A collective pull “in swing” propels the shell smoothly forward as eight oars leave the water at a precise perpendicular angle. If any oarsman muffs just one of these strokes or “catches a crab,” the shell is thrown off kilter. Close coordination welds eight rowers into a harmonious crew. It looks straightforward to an outside observer, an effortless ballet in motion.

      Structurally it is more complicated. All members of a crew are expected to row smoothly and quickly. But individual expectations vary depending on the seat they occupy. Bow seats one, two, and three have the greatest potential to disrupt the boat's direction, so they must be able to pull a perfect oar one stroke after another. Rowers in seats four, five, and six are the boat's biggest and strongest. They are often referred to as the “engine,” providing the boat's raw power. Seat seven's rower provides a conduit between the engine room and the “stroke oar” in seat eight. The “stroke oar” sits directly facing the coxswain and rows at the requested rate of speed and power, setting the pace and intensity for the other rowers.

Скачать книгу