Relationship with Organizations:Performance Management for New organizations
New Paradigms of looking at people and their relationship with Organizations
Employee relationship with the Organizations.
An analysis of prevalent ‘theories-in-use’ of how to organize a complex system reveals two dominant theories: hierarchies and markets. In fact, these are the two alternatives described by Oliver Williamson, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 2009. These are also the two alternatives that executives imagine. Hence their dilemma: they want less ‘centralization’, which requires a hierarchy that they fear could stifle innovation; but they also want less ‘decentralization’, which would open up an internal market for ideas and resources no doubt, but one they fear they may not be able to coordinate and control.
However, markets and hierarchies are not the only forms of organisational architecture. There is a third, which operates in natural systems. Imagine a tropical forest, humming with a variety of life. It is not an unformed chaotic system: it has a rhythm to it. Ask yourself, ‘Who is in charge of this complex system?’ It is not obvious who is, yet it functions very well. A study of the organisational architecture of such ‘complex, self-adaptive systems’ in nature and elsewhere (such as the Internet) reveals the principles for designing organisations that can remain on the creative edge between a stifling hierarchy (and bureaucracy) on one side and unorganized confusion on the other.
Relationship with organizations: Essential features
An essential feature of such organisations is the strength and quality of the lateral linking organisations within them. Traditional organisation designers concentrate most of their energy in specifying the organisation’s vertical structures-hierarchies, allocations of authority, reports up and instructions down. Lateral links across the organisation are not designed with similar attention. They are left to be shaped by informal, forces and political alignments within the organisation. Hence, they are often weak or inappropriate.
In the vertical view of the organisation, the need for coordination is met by appointing an authority above those who must be coordinated. Thus, weaknesses in the lateral structures are addressed with more vertical structures-more authorities, more monitors and more controls, which crowd the space for movement and creativity within the organisation.
Lateral linking structures are designed to facilitate and strengthen collaboration amongst the many agencies *groups / teams+ that must work together, rather than imposing one more ‘boss’ over them to force them to coordinate. These mutually supportive mechanisms are abundant in natural systems, such as the tropical forest. Such mechanisms also operate in many global, decentralized, yet well coordinated enterprises. Think of the Internet. Or the Visa credit card network. They hold together because the lateral links are strong, not because there is an authoritarian central command. Large, international consulting companies also rely on lateral linking mechanisms. They have fiercely individualist partners. Each is measured and rewarded for performance, so internal competition can be high. However, they are brought together in lateral linking ‘practices’, in which they share ideas, learn from each other, form teams to pursue new ideas and serve clients.
2.1 Arun Maira – Member Planning Commission Govt of India 5 (Excerpts from his article)