Organizational+Structure


 * November 13, 2012**
 * Youth Development Organizations & Their Environments**

__**GROUP 2:**__ Based on your understanding of the readings, develop answers to the following queries. In all cases, don't just answer the questions from the text. __#|Describe__, analyze, and provide examples from both the readings __#|AND personal__, real-world experience to support your answers! Your group should complete your synthesis by **11:59pm on Sunday, November 11.**

Frederick W. Taylor was the “father” of Scientific Management, he developed his concepts in the late 1800s and by the vearly 1900’s it was first management theory to be formulated and widely applied. The intention of the theory was to improve worker efficiency. A main objective was to apply science to management and engineering processes. He, along with other professionals, would analyze worker efficiency and determine methods to maximize productivity with the objective of reaching economic prosperity. Also integrated were Motion Studies in which leaders would analyze the motions involved to complete a task and determine ways to minimize the motions needed to complete the task, thereby simplifying the process, again, with the aim of maximizing productivity and profit. In the development of Scientific Management, it can be seen that human work is analyzed in increments as to ensure that their work is not creative, or managed on their own time, but that laborers follow a set structure of movements and actions which are aimed to have them function with a machine, and thus, be organized like a machine. Employees are expected to input and output the commands of their leaders, as a computer works. Certainly computers will glitch, as humans will glitch, but leaders aim to have operations run as smoothly as possible,with no glitches. Some of the core assumptions of the structural frame are that support this idea are: “Suitable forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals and units mesh…[and] Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal agendas and extraneous pressures….[and] Problems arise and performance suffers from structural deficiencies, which can be remedied through analysis and restructuring” (B&D, 66) This supports the notion that leaders employing the structural frame view laborers as a machine, contrary to being individuals with different minds, perspectives,feelings, and talents. By employing a structural format, #|business leaders are better able to control operations, predict outcomes, and thus maintain the stability of a business. However, treating a body of workers as a machine can be dehumanizing and disempowering for workers. From this observation, it becomes clearer why manufacturing __jobs__ are constantly being shipped overseas to developing economies, whereas the service industry is fast on the rise in the U.S. American’s embrace freedom and individuality, so to be treated as a machine is not exactly desirable in an economy where the available types of #|jobs __are__ far-ranging. However, in developing countries such as China, with drastically less opportunity for __employment__, repetitive and robotic labor, such as being a part of an assembly line, is a rapidly growing industry. Organizations such as Apple and Ikea are criticized for the unfair practices and treatment of overseas manufacturing workers, largely because the laborers treated as machines to an extreme extent of not providing safety, security, and fair pay. “Sweat shops” emphasize economic prosperity, but entirely neglect the bottom line workers. Thus, the structural function to be practical there needs to be a mutual benefit in which the employees can appreciate being an integral part of a machine, instead of being viewed at as expendable and inhuman. “Problems can crop up if growth (or downsizing) is not matched with fine-tuning of roles and relationships” (B&D, 80). Although Apple, Walmart, and other organizations such as these see growth annually, very little “fine-tuning” is seen at the bottom level, as the growth is primarily reserved for the top. In the future, if the international community opts to place more pressure on multinational corporate laws, this could pose major risks for companies with such practices. The structural function is beneficial if employees are viewed as valuable and skilled units that make a system whole, and not as an unskilled component of a machine.
 * 1. The Structural Frame has its roots in two major schools of thought - scientific __#|management systems__ based on maximizing efficiency, and bureaucratic rationality as a system for organizing people and processes. Because of this, some scholars have noted that organizations can be viewed as "machines." Based on B&D's description of the structural perspective in Chapter 3, in what ways are organizations like machines? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of machine-like organizational structures? **
 * __(Judy)__ **

There are two key components that must be balanced in the structural design are: first, //differentiation//, how to allocate work; and second, //integration//, how to coordinate diverse efforts into one. Basically, this involves the “who” and “what”; who tasks are assigned to, and what tasks are being conducted. It is necessary for the tasks to be integral to the organizational function, mission, and goals. An interesting analogy is comparing the structural format not only to a machine, but an ant colony, where each member serves a repetitive and specific function and purpose, at different levels from bottom to top, which keeps the entire ant colony operant. If there is not a balance between differentiation and integration, then specialization divisions can become fragmented and the mission becomes lost (too much differentiation), or major risks and problems can arise, such as NASA’s Challenger incident and BP’s oil rig explosion, due to hierarchal neglect of whistleblowers (too much integration). Differentiation and integration structures need to be designed with organizational values, objectives, and missions in place. here are several basic differentiation options listed by B&D, including: Function, Time, Product, Customers or clients, Place (geography), and Process. In youth development organizations it is important to differentiate by function, in terms of employees understanding each youth’s purpose at the center. For example, a leader who specializes in mediation and intervention can work with high risk youth; a leader who specializes in recreation can monitor basketball games. Structuring based on time is also critical; it is a way to organize activities and meetings options at youth development centers, in which leaders can emphasize integration. Products can be differentiated based on functions, for example, resources for art programs, resources for playing sports, and more. In the case of a youth development center, the youth and their parent/guardian are viewed at as the client, so members can be differentiated based on age, home circumstances, individual needs (e.g. allergies, handicaps). It can be seen in school systems now for children who are allergic to an item such as nuts to all be placed in one classroom in effort to minimize any possibility of an allergic reaction. There are benefits and drawbacks to differentiating and specializing work in organizations. First off, some people can view segmentation among youth based on certain characteristics as unfair. Additionally, some employees who wish to perform multiple functions can find specialization as a repetitive job. Though, the benefits are largely that it allows operations to function in an organized manner. If a youth development center is not organized, structured, and does not have adults who can specialize in different areas, risks are made in which youth can become difficult to manage and influence. Organizations integrate and coordinate work in two key ways: vertical and lateral. Vertical integration includes authority, rules and policies, planning and control systems. Lateral integration includes meetings, task forces, coordinating roles, matrix structures, and networks. Having components of both, in addition to components for differentiation, are imperative for a balanced organization. For example if a company is focused solely on authority, rules and policies, and neglects differentiation, meetings, and others areas where members throughout the organization are treated as individuals, it can result in a hierarchal, authoritarian structure which can lead to organizational or public unrest, and organizational conflicts, such as the earlier listed example of NASA’s challenger incident. Each organization can benefit from a good combination of options for integration and differentiation. For example, a marketing company can benefit immensely from designing matrix structures in effort to appeal to a diversity of consumers. In the “lateral” matrix structure there can be three different key styles, in three different key sizes, at three different key price ranges. This broadens the extent that a company is able to serve public interests and needs. Such matrixes can be applied to a youth development center as well. For example, there can be three key areas in one row: Arts, Sports, and Games, then there can be three key age groups in each column: ages 5-8, 9-12, 13-15, and within this matrix there can be different options for each age/activity group. It is also essential to have the “vertical” rules and policies, and an established authority, in any organization, so long as they are set in place to ensure the law is followed, and that standards for fairness and ethics are established. “Lateral” meetings can prove to be impactful ways to ensure rules and policies are representative of the organization as a whole, and not just of the visions and views of the leader. In a youth development center, meetings can include staff members, community officials, parents/guardians, and more. Overall, each of these functions can prove to be valuable in different types of organizations. However, it is critical that an organization incorporates a balance of bother vertical and lateral integration, in addition to options for differentiation, that most adequately align with the needs of the organization and the people that comprise of it. It is impactful to learn about the range of options as a means to develop a structural format that will be effective and efficient.
 * 2. According to B&D, there are two basic structural tensions - how work is allocated (differentiation) and how work is coordinated (integration). Too much of one can create challenges for the other. Using the basic differentiation options discussed by B&D on page 52-53, how do we differentiate work in youth development organizations? Provide some examples of these groupings from your own experiences in organizations. What are the benefits and drawbacks of differentiating and specializing work in organizations?**
 * __(Judy)__ **
 * 3. Similar to question 2 - what are some of the key ways that organizations integrate or coordinate work according to B&D? Which of these methods do you think are most effective? Which are the least? Why do you think this way?**
 * __(Judy)__ **


 * 4. B&D discuss several "structural dilemmas" on pp. 73-76. Describe these dilemmas in your own words. Between the members of your group, provide an example or set of examples of each of these within the context of youth or human-services organizations (these can be real examples or fictional demonstrations - I'm seeking __#|application__ here!)**
 * __(Sara)__**

Differentiation vs. integration- This dilemma can be less of a problem if confronted using the combination of strategic thinking and planning as we discussed last week in class. In the youth serving field I think is just as important that as things begin to change and grow, using these strategies can help with coordination new systems, rules, policies, etc. This consideration makes way for a more effective integration of new ideas and plans while keeping mission and vision in clear focus. So for example when new programs are developed, having a strategy on who and how it will be integrated into an existing system helps keep this dilemma in balance.

Gap Vs. Overlap- Overlaps and Gaps in key roles and responsibilities can easily occur in all types of organizations including youth serving ones when there is a gap in role boundaries. This gap and or overlap can clearly cause repeated work, time wasters, and even conflict among role players. A perfect example of this to share is with the Big Brothers-Big Sister mentoring program my son participates in. His big brother calls and inquires about his little brother, sets up a meeting date, and then comes to my home to pick-up his little brother for play date. Then the same day, or couple days later a coordinator calls and attempts to go through the same process the big brother has already completed. So there is a gap between their communications, and as a result causes the coordinator to waste time trying to re-setup play-dates, which are already in, place.

Underuse vs. Overload- the former dilemma is a valid one in organizations, but one I find to be a rear case in youth leadership environment. Having too little work and becoming board. In the youth development field, the later is more common---not having enough time is more the norm-overload. The trick is in finding balance in the youth leadership field that will allow professionals not to become overloaded in service.

Lack of Clarity vs. lack of creativity- Here in this dilemma I think periodically revisiting a clear mission and vision is essential in unleashing creativity that remains in alignment with a specific organization. Like in organizations, if youth leaders are not clear on what the overall goal is then that can naturally lead to the development of self-centered goals. In retrospect, when there is a clear understanding then leaders can more freely participate in painting a picture that reflects intended purposes.

Excessive Autonomy vs. Excessive Interdependence- This is another dilemma that requires balancing act. Effective Youth Leaders possesses the ability to balance between the two in my opinion. This leader is able to work alone and is also able to connect among and interdependently weaving through a particular organization. A youth leader who is only able to work on a one mans island and lack the communication skills to connect and reach out to other peers or even steak-holders is at risk for limited effectiveness with reaching a wide spread range of young people directly and indirectly.

Too Loose vs. Too Tight- Like many of the previous dilemmas, this one requires a balancing effort to be effective also. In a youth serving organization it is important for the culture not to be so loose that causes fear or unstableness, or so tight that there is no flexibility. Too loose may cause the professionals to take their roles as serious as it really is, and in contrast too tight can discourage creativity. I’ve witnessed this in a mentoring environment where is some aspects of there program its too laid-back and important appointments are missed. And its also in other areas too tight following the rules that the co-workers start grappling with each other and complaining on the side of their disappointment with such ridged office structure. Not having a nice balance can cause leaders to become frustrated and many choose to leave their roles as an outlet.

Goalless vs. Goalbound- Goal-Less is an expression of a person or company who has no set goals, or no longer has clear goals. In youth leadership, this could be seen at a school that hires independent contractors to come in and offer “getting ready for college” work-shops, yet the school is college-prep magnet school which #1 focus is on preparing its students for college. The contractors could become more goalbound by adding a twist like how to stay in college, ways to succeed once there, and how to finish strong.

Irresponsible vs. Unresponsive- This dilemma takes some intuition in knowing when to bend and when to fold in a situation. In light of youth leadership it could mean the degree of flexibility one has with the youth served. So not all youth have the same exact needs. In the bike-club I participate in for example the girls complain about the bike seats being to hard and shaped funny for them. Is this just a girl complaint, or a valid observation to consider finding a way to respond to? Being irresponsible I think is this example is when one learns of situation and not recognize it in any way for potential resolutions.


 * 5.**
 * Why do organizations attempt to restructure? ** It is believed that restructure is attempted by organizations to stay competitive and alive in the ever-changing society. This restructuring can take many different forms including downsizing, up sizing, relocation, and many others.

Since the world is continually changing, continuous organizational learning is necessary to stay up to date. Organizations that cannot or will not learn will become obsolete. Leaders should periodically examine the organizational structure of their enterprise to assure that it continues to provide an environment for organizational learning and growing.

People don’t like changes, yet the only consistent thing in life is **change**. It is believed personally that accepting change is the biggest difficulty because people like to hold on to what is known even if it’s no longer working. Next to that is the ability of sharing the new vision of change is the next challenge that makes things difficult.
 * What makes restructuring difficult for organizations? **

One of the strategically ways to begin planning and tactically implementing restructuring is to 1st plan out the how to share the news, and anticipate how to share the “whys” effectively with people effected.
 * How can organizations successfully navigate the restructuring process? **

An article found in MindTools shares **//one way//** of accelerating change, and increasing its likelihood of success by using the Change Curve Model: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_96.htm

The Change Curve is a popular and powerful model used to understand the stages of personal transition and organizational change. It helps you understand how people will react to change; so that you can help them make their own personal transitions, and make sure that they have the help and support they need.

The Change Curve The Change Curve model describes the four stages most people go through as they adjust to change. You can see this in figure 1, below. When a change is first introduced, people's initial reaction may be shock or denial, as they react to the challenge to the status quo. This is **stage 1** of the Change Curve. Once the reality of the change starts to hit, people tend to react negatively and move to **stage 2** of the Change Curve: They may fear the impact; feel angry; and actively resist or protest against the changes. Some will wrongly fear the negative consequences of change. Others will correctly identify real threats to their position. As a result, the organization experiences disruption, which, if not carefully managed, can quickly spiral into chaos. For as long as people resist the change and remain at stage 2 of the Change Curve, the change will be unsuccessful, at least for the people who react in this way. This is a stressful and unpleasant stage. For everyone, it is much healthier to move to stage 3 of the Change Curve, where pessimism and resistance give way to some optimism and acceptance. At **stage 3** of the Change Curve, people stop focusing on what they have lost. They start to let go, and accept the changes. They begin testing and exploring what the changes means, and so learns the reality of what's good and not so good, and how they must adopt.

By **stage 4**, they not only accept the changes but also start to embrace them: They rebuild their ways of working. Only when people get to this stage can the organization can really start to reap the benefits of change.


 * 6. Wheeler (2000) writes about a set of "emerging paradigms" in structural __#|thinking__ that can be (and should be) applied to youth development organizations. What are some of Wheeler's suggestions for structuring youth development organizations? How does what Wheeler suggests square with our discussion of divergent and strategic thinking last week, particularly in light of our reading of the Hopkins & Hyde (2002) piece?**
 * (__Cortney__)**

Wheeler discusses a shift in paradigms. The two shifts that he discussed were a shift to a virtual workplace and organizing has a high performance system. Wheeler suggested that youth development organizations should be structured in a manner that aligns its values with the way in which the organization functions. In other words, the work and composition of the organization should directly correlate with the manner in which the youth development organization operates. At the United Way a nonprofit organization that in many communities’ serves or funds others that work with youth has adopted a business model that guides the work of the organization. See illustration below:  The business model above also focuses on two other ways that youth organizations can structure themselves. She spoke about down breaking down barriers and having dynamic products and dynamic and involved staff. In the discussion of breaking down barriers, Wheeler describes this as working toward the common good. United way has structured itself around this emerging paradigm. The focus here is to organize in a way that is not limited to contributing to just a client base or small constituency but to a broader base of society. The campaign for the common good can be seen below:


 * The United Way Campaign for the Common Good will mobilize millions of people and organizations across the country to take action and improve the education, income and health of America's communities. The campaign kicks off with a focus on education and an ambitious goal to cut the high school dropout rate in half. **
 * [] **

If youth organizations are going to continue to achieve positive outcomes for youth, they will need to begin to operate and structure themselves in these manners. This includes attracting highly educated and talented staff that may have the choice of working for in the private or public sector. Wheeler brings practical and concrete suggestions which can very applicable given what we discussed last week from Hyde and Hopkins (2002). This shift is definitely emerging is not the rule in nonprofit management. Youth development Leaders who are thinking strategically will definitely at bare minimum be attempting to add business principles to their organizations.


 * 7. What do you think the relationship is between strong collaboration and partnerships and organizational efficiency and effectiveness? According to Byrne and Hansberry (2007), what are the characteristics of effective collaborations? What have your experiences been with collaborative efforts and partnerships? If they were good experiences - what made them good? If they were not so good - what could have made them better? How does this square with Byrne & Hansberry's suggestions and case examples?**
 * (__Cortney__)**

In today’s economy, it is essential for youth development organizations to for partnerships and collaborations. Funders often require collaboration. In order to be effective in youth development, organizations must be able to collaborate for recruitment, data collection, evaluation, transportation, facilities and much more. The roles of the each partner must be clearly defined and mutually agreed upon. According to Byrne and Hansberry (2007) the following are the characteristics of effective collaborations:
 * Shared Priorities
 * Combined Resources
 * Institutional support and political will
 * Shared clarity of expectations
 * Value added
 * Organizational identity and branding
 * Organizational effectiveness

My experiences with collaborative efforts have been positive for the most part. With any partnership, there were times that were more challenging. The most challenging times were usually over recognition of accomplishments or funding. There have been times when some partners would want to get recognized for achieving a goal when they were a partner of the collaboration only in name. This definitely causes rifts and dissension on the team.The overall experience is valuable. I have found that you cannot do youth development work in silos if you want to achieve positive youth outcomes. The whole child approach calls for stakeholders to work together to benefit that child. “It takes a village”….is an adage that speaks to the need for partnerships.

__#|According__ to K&P (2007), leadership is the study of how much men and women guide others through adversity, uncertainty, change, and etcetera. Leadership is interconnected with innovation. Innovations are linked with change and creativity. Leaders must be innovators to navigate their organizations (pg. 168). They must devise solutions to problems and or challenges. Leaders are hardworking, thinkers, and solution focused which is needed when facing organizational challenges. The relationship can be visualized as a sandwich, all parts coming together to make a hole- innovation: change/creativity: proactive leader. Restructuring requires the same time investment, commitment, and initiative as innovation. As with innovation, restructuring is used by organizations when they feel compelled to respond to major problems or opportunities (Bolman and Deal, 2008).
 * 8. In Chapter 7, K&P talk quite extensively about the relationship between strong leadership and the process of organizational change and innovation. Describe that relationship. What are the connections between K&P's thoughts in Chapter 7 and B&D's discussion on restructuring in Chapter 4?**

I agree with the statement “the most effective change processes are incremental, not one giant leap”. According to K&P (2007), leaders have to break down big problems into small doable actions. Change is always happening, it is not consistent. In order to grow and seek new ideas-change is inevitable. If leaders took “one giant leap” critical steps in the change process will be missed. Taking a giant step does not leave room for research and does not ensure that change is effective in comparison to taking smaller steps. Taking small steps or one step at a time has the advantage of reducing the overwhelming effect which can often happen when looking at the “whole picture”. It also increases motivation and effectiveness. This makes me think of the process of completing my Masters Project- one chapter at a time. It also makes me think of the journey in the process to substance abuse recovery that my clients embark. No change process happens overnight-whether it’s within an organization or life events.
 * 9. According to K&P, "the most effective change processes are incremental, not one giant leap" (p. 193). Do you agree or disagree? Why? What examples can you provide - from your own experiences - that either back up or refute this statement.**

There is a distinct relationship between learning and leading. In fact, in order to be a leader one must first learn. According to K&P (2007), the more one is engaged in learning, the more successful they are at leading. Most leaders recognize that they do not know it all and take initiative to seek volunteer opportunities, trainings, or leadership development programs for the advancement of their skills. Mistakes are inevitable and according to K&P (2007), is also a key component in innovation and in the learning process. Mistakes or failures generated produce lessons and information which contribute to learning. No matter the approach, leaders show an appreciation for learning and recognize mistakes as a supporting tool.
 * 10. What is the relationship between "learning" and "leading" according to K&P in Chapter 8. What does this say about the role of failure in the process of leading change efforts? How should leaders effectively deal with the stress and fear of failure that often comes with difficult decisions and experiences? Consider how leaders should deal with this themselves as well as what they can do to get their staff to move beyond their fear of change?**

Although the ability to succeed under stress is dependent upon how one views change, when dealing with stress and fear of failure, K&P advise leaders to keep in the forefront that stress is accompanied by the pursuit of excellence and to use it as a motivation tool. When leaders develop a positive attitude about stress it conveys a drive to move forward in the challenging process to constituents. When dealing with stressful decisions and/or experiences leaders may want to consider getting input and support from other leaders-management team. This will help alleviate a high degree of stress that is often present when an organization is “too top heavy”. To get staff to move beyond the fear of change leaders should stay engaged and connected with constituents-motivate and encourage. Leaders should also try to help staff move beyond the feelings of stress and generate momentum.