So Let's Get
Organized
Management's effort to improve its use of human resources has commanded increasing attention in the past decade. But no management has as yet solved to its full satisfaction the sensitive and delicate problem of the effective organization of human effort.
— Douglas McGregor
Much fun has been poked at the well-intentioned executive whose grand resolve to "get organized" far exceeds the end results. On many a manager's desk the dust has settled — perhaps significantly — on the cartoon depicting two managers leaning far back in their chairs with their feet reclining on the same desk. They seem a bit removed from their once unquestionably good intentions. "Tomorrow," opines the more industrious of the two, "tomorrow we've just got to get organized."
Page 126
THE ORGANIZATION CHART
When we talk about organization structure the picture that comes to mind is that of an organization chart on which boxes represent positions in the organizational structure and reporting relationships are shown by connecting lines. Many people fail to realize that the organization chart rarely captures the true picture of an organization and although it may initially have done so, will not do so for long. The dynamics of organization being what they are, changes occur within organizations with respect to communications, decision-making, alignments of opinion and centers of influence at a rapid rate. These are continuing changes that leave an organization chart obsolete if it is left untended. Even when up-to-date, these diagrams do little more than represent who reports to whom, identify main departments or divisions of work, and indicate relative relationships within the organization.
While these are important, and such information is essential, it is imperative to note that critical areas untouched by these charts will include how the people work together; how information actually flows on the "communications network"; how decisions are made; the extent of the authority residing in each square; what characterizes superior-subordinate relationships; the nature of the tasks to be performed to realize the organizational objectives.
So an organization chart is not a picture of people, but of "paper relationships" of divisions of work to be done, and of lines of responsibility. It is a useful tool for managerial understanding... is particularly helpful in orientation of new personnel... and must be kept current to reflect the true situation. Webster's definition of "organize" is "to arrange or constitute in interdependent parts, each having a special function or relation with respect to the whole."
Page 127
Louis Allen defines "management organizing" as "the work a manager performs to arrange and relate the work to be done so that it may be performed most effectively by people." Within these definitions the utility of the organization chart, as well as its limitations, becomes clear.
In Christian organizations, as in industry, Allen notes a surprising lack of delegated responsibility for organization structure.1 This may account for the lack of organization charts or, where they are found to exist, their obsolescence. Though limited in their scope, this caution is simply a reminder to avoid overreliance, not a suggestion to ignore them entirely. The recognition of such charts as a useful managerial tool is seen in the American Management Association's Manual of Position Descriptions2 which recommends that a position guide consist of three elements: (1) an organization chart; (2) a position description; and (3) position qualifications.
A new awareness of organizational significance has been forced upon us by automation and such changes within organizational structures as those caused by the introduction of data-processing. The need for attention to this area increases with the size and complexity of organizations. As the number of persons involved increases, the necessity for orderliness in work relationships and assignments also increases. In a properly designed organization, according to Allen, jobs will be "tightly packed with important work and commensurate authority to challenge workers, eliminate duplication, friction and frustration, and provide maximum satisfaction for results accomplished."3
"Span of control" is a term designed to express the number of persons over whom a manager is capable of exercising effective supervision. As Christian organizations grow from their inception to maturity, we visualize how this factor becomes increasingly important, frequently
Page 128
without being recognized. The danger in this failure to identify and deal with the problem of maximum effective supervision is that once the optimum number of subordinates is exceeded, the inverse ratio between the number of persons reporting to the manager and the overall efficiency of the organization may assume serious proportions.
Picture the "entrepreneur-founder," the indispensable one without whose vision, determination and initiative the organization would probably not even exist. Having brought the organization through its difficult years with each key person reporting in a one-to-one relationship to the boss, this entrepreneur finds that the sheer numbers in the organization now make such relationships increasingly difficult, taxing and ineffective. Key people no longer can "get to the boss." When they do, the boss is snowed "under" by phone calls, nervous about "other worries," increasingly incapable of being available to those in whose hands rests the future of the organization. This is the problem of "span of control."
In industry a common guideline of five to ten has been suggested as the optimum number of subordinates for maximum effectiveness, depending on the situation. Among the factors affecting the situation will be ability to delegate (determining the amount of time left to manage others); complexity of work (affecting frequency of problems requiring consulting); extent of decentralization or separation of those being managed; and the relationships between the subordinates (affecting the extent to which reconciling of differences may be a problem).
The tendency to resist change may be nowhere more evident than in an organizational structure. Parkinson's Law (work tends to expand to fill the time available) captures one aspect of this problem. Rather than suggest a change in structure to rectify the problem of not having enough to do,
Page 129
or request more work, the typical employee will maintain a pace to keep busy. In doing so the employee expands the work to fill the available time. This is a natural tendency in all of us. One consequence of this tendency is to become "activity-oriented" rather than "results-oriented." How many managers would normally consider first what a subordinate had actually accomplished while on the job when discovering that this employee had not put in the usual eight hours? Many manager who think they are emphasizing results over activity may in fact be doing the opposite. They do this by permitting an environment in which the employee who has accomplished the day's work and leaves on time, or even early, will be viewed with raised eyebrows, suggesting that his or her loyalty to the organization ought to be questioned. Remember Clarence Randall's advice on what to do with the self-martyred overworked executive — "recognize him as the liability he is." While this, of course, will not be universally applicable, managers in Christian organizations will do well to contemplate its possible implications.
Christian organizations which have employees experienced in organizational matters are not common. Of those with prior experience in organization, few will likely have the determination, in the face of pressing responsibilities, to keep up with developments. The accelerating rate of change in management-thinking affecting organizations of all sizes makes attention to this matter urgent. Perhaps no other area poses greater potential for immediate returns in overall effectiveness... and overall effectiveness, in the final analysis, means time.
DELEGATION
The "entrusting of responsibility and authority to others and the creating of accountability for results" — as Allen
Page 130
defines "delegation" — may be the most important single skill of the executive. In an attempt to dispel some of the confusion which arises over the use of the term, he performs a useful service by defining several key words:
Responsibility — the work assigned to a position.Authority — the sum of the powers and rights assigned to a position.
Accountability — the obligation to perform responsibility and exercise authority in terms of established performance standards.
Allen's definition of "delegation" (entrusting responsibility and authority to others and creating accountability for results) suggests at once where the problems may arise. First there is the strong possibility that responsibility and authority will not be delegated equally. Generally authority is lacking to do all that is implied by the responsibility which has been delegated. This is a serious violation of one of the most important principles of management and should be avoided wherever possible. To ask employees to perform tasks for which you are unwilling to give the authority required is to invite unnecessary time wasted in answering questions which will have to be brought back to you. Furthermore, it will discourage subordinates when they find that, despite appearances, they had not been entrusted with the authority necessary to do the jobs they had been given. This contributes to a climate between superiors and subordinates which is not conducive to future growth on the part of the subordinates, or to teamwork, or to future successful delegation.
Failure to exact accountability for results takes a toll of executive efficiency and organizational effectiveness that
Page 131
may be far greater than managers imagine. The emphasis on "management by objectives" or "management by results" points to this failure. Who among us, in describing positions, has not outlined the activities with which the employees are supposed to busy themselves instead of describing the "results" they are supposed to accomplish? Check the job descriptions for your key positions, if you doubt this. (One of the key determinants in delegation is the fixing of accountability for expected results).
Other barriers to effective delegation commonly cited include fear that delegated work will not be done quite as well or in quite the same fashion as it would be if not delegated; fear that it may be done better — creating an unfavorable comparison; lack of understanding of what is required for successful delegation; and lack of organizational definitions of responsibility and authority for various positions (managers are not likely to delegate responsibility and authority which they are not certain they have!).
Still other barriers to effective delegation were identified by Christian executives in a recent management seminar. They included: inadequate training of subordinates so they could accept delegated duties; fear of insufficient remaining duties; lack of value of own time; and uncertainty as to what ought to be delegated. How a manager determines what to delegate will tell a great deal with respect to the type of leadership given to the organization... whether the manager will be too engulfed in the routine of the job to provide the creative, imaginative, resourceful leadership the times demand. It will tell whether he or she will expend effort and energy putting out yesterday's fires or planning how best to apply today's resources to tomorrow's opportunities.
Many elements in the functions of leadership cannot be delegated. Among them would be the final selection of key
Page 132
associates; final decision-making on major issues; coaching of immediate subordinates; final decisions relating to organizational structure; and the dealing with substandard performance of key assistants. Within each of these, however, there may be matters of routine details that ought to be delegated wherever possible.
Life is full of paradoxes, and that of the Christian executive is no exception. While most executives are concerned about the pressure of a stacked desk, there is, paradoxically, for some the silent fear of finding themselves with not enough to do.
This is a fear that can strangle delegation, cripple the training of subordinates, dull effectiveness and eventually incapacitate the able executive.
Many managers forget that their own climb up the ladder of success probably would have been jeopardized had they concentrated on making themselves indispensable. Few organizations can afford the price of advancing the employee that has made himself or herself irreplaceable by doing it all alone. There is a spiritual principle here: every Christian leader should constantly be preparing a "Timothy."
The burdens that create tension for our overworked executives also salve their consciences with a reassuring, if deluding, sense of security. Leo Garel caught one of the extremities of this paradox in his Wall Street Journal cartoon. Behind his spacious but immaculate mahogany desk the imperious executive sat strumming his fingers. "You know how valuable my time is, Miss Grey," he said to his secretary standing in the doorway. "Couldn't you please find me something to do?"
We need not fear that managers whose foresight in planning and determined delegations brings them dividends of extra time will have difficulty in deciding how to
Page 133
spend those bonus minutes. The most important of their "unstarted projects" will be waiting, ready to go.
ESTABLISHING RELATIONSHIPS
How does one "create the conditions necessary for mutually co-operative efforts of people?" Discussions of this point in industry tend to polarize around such ever-present problems as "line-staff relationships." In general the "line" people make decisions and issue orders, while the "staff" people provide services of a special nature found necessary to the effective functioning of line personnel. While this problem may not be faced in most small to medium-sized Christian organizations, it may be found in many medium-sized to large organizations. While the magnitude and complexity of this problem are beyond the purview of this book, it is a great mistake to overlook its significance. The reader is referred to a compilation of twenty-five selected readings under the title Human Relations in Administration.4
It would be easy to assume naively that Christian organizations have no problems in human relations. "How could they?" asks the uninformed outsider. "Aren't they in the Lord's work, after all?" Unfortunately, many discerning observers of Christians organizations are concluding that they are particularly afflicted with critical deficiencies in this very area. It may be that every reader will know of one — a friend or acquaintance — who has gone to work for a Christian organization only to be surprised, amazed or permanently disillusioned by the treatment of people in the organization. As one who has served on several of their boards puts it, "The paths of Christian organizations are strewn with the corpses of their friends."
While the authors do not pretend to have the answers, there is no question that it is time to face the problem. We
Page 134
talked earlier about certain of the principles of personnel management which secular organizations attempt to follow. We asked why Christian organizations refuse to follow them, when they are seen to be not only biblically based, but also capable of solving problems. Let us trust that this situation has resulted simply from lack of knowledge.
If organizational relationships are simply the "rules established to ensure effective teamwork among people working together," it should be evident to every Christian executive that ultimate success and quality of the performance of a task may be affected to a critical degree by how the employee comprehends and effectively implements such rules.
REFERENCES:
1. Allen, Louis A., The Management Profession, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964. In Allen's study of two thousand management positions, less than 10 percent indicated any delegation of responsibility for organization itself.
2. Wortman, Max S., Jr., and JoAnn Sperling, Defining the Manager's Job, 2nd Edition: The A.M.A. Manual of Position Descriptions, American Management Association, New York, 1975.
3. Allen, The Management Profession.
4. Dubin, Robert, Human Relations in Administration, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1961.
