Corporate Structure in the Global Economy


Corporate structures will be increasingly expected to deal with tension-producing forces, as well as compressive ones. Among them is the tendency for companies to become increasingly spread thin as they respond to an expanding multitude of masters. And it is likely that both employees and their governments will take their turn demanding greater attention to their particular needs and requirements. On top of these whiplash-inducing pressures will be the ongoing operational tensions arising from the continuing use of speed as a competitive weapon.

 

As if these ongoing pushes and pulls will not be enough of a challenge, most businesses will also face the requirement to be more flexible than ever in deploying and redeploying resources to mact the moving targets provided by customers’ requirements and competitors’ advances. The globalizing marketplace tends to be unforgiving when corporate inertia or bureaucracy limits flexibility. This degree of organizational elasticity—stretching to accommodate special situations, then returning to the original shape to meet regular demands—is already a necessity in many industries. Soon it will be mandatory in most.

 

A measure of plasticity will be needed, as well. The ability to change an organization’s shape, to adapt to new markets or to reconfigure around emerging capabilities, will be another dynamic quality in the repertoire of the new corporation. This attribute—the ability to reorganize completely every several years without succumbing to terminal brittleness—is a rarity in most companies today. But it will be common among those that thrive into this 21st Century.

 

Just as architects have never found a single, always appropriate building block for every structure, organization designers are also unlikely to find one. But the old building blocks of narrowly defined jobs used in tandem with traditional supervision are not working. Perhaps the lead of the architect can be followed, and companies can learn to select organizational building blocks that can be adjusted to cope with the forces they face at a particular time. In keeping with what has worked for the architect, organization planners can:

  • Reinforce jobs to ensure they have the strength to resist the tensions and compressions they must increasingly cope with.
  • Use the organizational equivalent of composites—teams—when job reinforcement alone is insufficient to provide the company with an appropriate degree of flexibility.
  • Make sure that the company’s managers are in load-bearing roles—ones vital to the organization’s structural integrity—and act as drivers of the business’s ongoing adaptability, rather than mere definers of unneeded internal walls.

 Reinforced jobs, composite teams, and load-bearing managers—these may well be the most useful raw materials from which the structure of the corporation is shaped.

 

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

The Job Analysis


Job analysis is the procedure for determining the duties and skill requirements of a job and the kind of person who should be hired for it.

Organizations consist of positions that have to be staffed. Job analysis produces information used for writing job descriptions—a list of what the job entails thus enwrapping duties, responsibilities, reporting relationships, working conditions, and supervisory responsibilities—and job specifications—what kind of people to hire for the job.

The supervisor or HR specialist normally collects one or more of the following types of information via the job analysis:

  • Work activities. First, he or she collects information about the job’s actual work activities, such as selling, teaching, or painting. This list may also include how, why, and when the worker performs each activity.
  • Human behaviors. The specialist may also collect information about human behaviors like sensing, communicating, deciding, and writing. Included here would be information regarding job demands such as lifting weights or walking long distances.
  • Machines, tools, equipment, and work aids. This category includes information regarding tools used, materials processed, knowledge dealt with or applied (such as finance or law), and services rendered (such as counseling or repairing).
  • Performance standards. The employer may also want information about the job’s performance standards (in terms of quantity or quality levels for each job duty, for instance). Management will use these standards to appraise employees.
  • Job context. Included here is information about such matters as physical working conditions, work schedule, and the organizational and social context—for instance, the number of people with whom the employee would normally interact. Information regarding incentives might also be included here.
  • Human requirements. This includes information regarding the job’s human requirements, such as job-related knowledge or skills (education, training, work experience) and required personal attributes (aptitudes, physical characteristics, personality, interests).

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Synergizing Training Strategy with Corporate Strategy


The primary objective of synergy is that employees acquire all the skills and knowledge they need, but only what they need. What do they really need? Whatever is essential to formulate and fulfill a successful corporate strategy? Certain skills and knowledge are needed to determine what products and services the company should produce, and what kinds of technology should be used to produce them; other skills and knowledge are needed in order to apply new technologies most profitably.

Those who determine corporate strategy must calculate whether the organization is capable of acquiring strategically necessary skills and knowledge on schedule. In learning companies, therefore, a senior officer in charge of training takes part in formulating strategy. That individual can also advise whether a more ambitious strategy would be feasible from the standpoint of training, and can help subsequently to communicate the strategy to all parts of the organization.

Communication of the strategy is vital. Trainees and their supervisors take training seriously only when they believe it will further the company’s prosperity and their own. If they do not understand the skill and learning requirements of the corporate strategy, they cannot make valid decisions on how to achieve strategic goals.

Ultimately, it is the chief executive’s responsibility to see that the training requirements of corporate strategy are met. The key points to be monitored are program priorities, program objectives, and program outcomes.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Change and Transformation Losers


Losers adopt a combination of attitudes, approaches and priorities, from a limited vision and a short-term and internal orientation, through cutting corners, to attempts to protect corporate interests, and this locks them into a ‘spiral of descent’. The almost inevitable outcome of their actions and inaction is a struggle to remain viable as a supplier of low-margin commodity work.

Losers become reactive and defensive, get lost in complexity of labyrinthine proportions and the more activities they engage in to break free, the more they become entangled. They introduce changes for changes’ sake. They become neutralized by their lack of imagination and entangled in barbed wire created by their own words and actions. The trick they try to play is to retire or to move on at a high point.

Losers in the battle to become and remain competitive:

·        are ‘in their own space’ and relatively oblivious to the needs of others; they do not anticipate and remain unaware of significant external developments and pressing requirements to change;

  • lack self-confidence and self-worth and hold back, they are different, can be indicative and find it difficult to commit themselves;
  • do not have a compelling rationale and purpose; they are not unique, special or even distinctive;
  • are not noticed by people, they are grey and dull, and hence fail to stand out or have an impact;
  • copy and follow others; they do not innovate or differentiate  themselves from their competitors;
  • respond to events; they react to incoming approaches and invitations to tender;
  • do not prioritize and focus; they fail to address what is important as a result of being distracted by trivia;
  • hoard information and hold on to the reigns of power; they are reluctant to delegate and to trust and involve others;
  • remunerate people according to their seniority and status in the management hierarchy;
  • are driven by internal personal goals and corporate targets rather than by customer requirements;
  • play other people’s games rather than live on their own terms; they become pawns on other people’s chessboards;
  • adopt standard approaches and are rigid and inflexible;
  • follow fashions and have a penchant for fads;
  • search for panaceas and single solutions;
  • define their capabilities in terms of the tangible assets they own and the people they employ;
  • are consumers rather than producers of knowledge, understanding  and intellectual capital;
  • respond unimaginatively and mechanically to business opportunities;
  • rely on traditional ‘hard-self’ techniques and undertake win-lose negotiations;
  • make little effort to learn from either their experience or that of others;
  • hold back and stay aloof; they avoid personal commitments, partnering  arrangements and inter-organizational links;
  • are selfish in relationships and put the minimum of effort into maintaining them;
  • use their customers to achieve their own short-term objectives;
  • are cautious and half hearted in their approach to e-business;
  • mouth generalizations and they indulge in self-deception and spin;
  • live for the moment; they have short time horizons;
  • do little to keep competitors out of their key accounts;
  • leave the building of customer relationships to specialist sales staff;
  • ignore organizations that are supplied by competitors;
  • prize their freedom and independence, they prefer to operate alone;
  • attempt to protect their interests with small print and avoid the assumption and sharing of risks;
  • are secretive and defensive; they build internal and external barriers to create a hard shell;
  • offer other employees general training and development that is viewed as a cost;
  • fail to equip their people to win new business, create new offerings or build customer relationships;
  • are complacent and set in their ways; they are reluctant to think, question and learn;
  • confuse the roles of owner-shareholder, manager and director;
  • fail to distinguish between operational matters and strategic issues;
  • become typecast and locked into certain roles; they tend to end up as commodity suppliers.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact http://www.asifjmir.com