Writer’s choice SAME WRITER

-Meg Wheatley (1992,p. 39)

There are many reasons that organizations consider restructuring; it could be because of an acute problem, the need for innovation, or new threats by competition, to name a few. It is important to assess the strengths and limitations of organizations when considering restructuring. The rationale for the need, timing, planning, and strategizing of the restructuring effort must be determined before beginning such an initiative.

It is the structure of an organization that enables the company’s strategy to succeed in carrying out its mission (Dhillon & Gupta, 2015). There is rarely one structure that is going to take care of all of the needs of an organization. Restructuring to meet new and changing needs of an organization may involve a blend of structures to accommodate different needs. For example, in a fast food business, there may be a mechanical structure in the stores to ensure consistency of service and food (Bolman & Deal, 2017). From the stores to corporate, there may be a mechanical structure as well. However, at corporate, the divisions such as marketing, human resources, operations, etc., may have a networking structure to better accommodate their functions. The employees may have a unique way of communicating and relating to one another that is not explained on the hierarchical structure chart. Rummler and Brache (2012) named this space the white space in their book on managing this space on the organization chart to improve performance. The white space refers to communication and collaboration among employees that occurs informally or as needed and is typically not accounted for on organizational charts (Rummler & Brache, 2012). According to the authors, often it is within the white space where problems occur, such as miscommunication, role ambiguity, and conflicts.

This week, you will continue to examine the frame of structure in relationship to today’s turbulent business environment, moving beyond the mechanical structure.

Learning Objectives
This week, you will:

Apply frames and metaphors to restructring organizations for change
Analyze the strengths and limitations of restructuring
Analyze the relationship between turbulence and organic networking
Skills
You will develop the following skills:

Analyze organizations under pressure
Apply theoretical concepts to practical cases
Resources
Note: To access this week’s required Harvard Business Review resources, select the article link and navigate to the relevant article or go back to Blackboard and select Harvard Business Articles from the course navigation menu.

Readings
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chapter 3, “Getting Organized” (pp. 45-70)
Chapter 4, “Structure and Restructuring” (pp. 71-92)
Chapter 5, “Organizing Groups and Team” (pp. 93-114)
Bonabeau, E., & Meyer, C. (2001, May). Swarm intelligence. A whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review, 79(5), 106–114, 165.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Sull, D. N. (2001, January). Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 107–116.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 3, “Nature Intervenes: Organizations as Organisms” (pp. 33–69)
Chapter 4, “Learning and Self-Organization: Organizations as Brains” (pp. 71–114)
Walden University Online Writing Center. (2014). Walden templates: Overview. Retrieved from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates

Walley, E. E., & Stubbs, M. (2000). Termites and champions: Case comparisons by metaphor. Greener Management International, (29), 41–54.

Discussion 2: Organic Structural Elements
Using metaphors to understand organizations or to create a new structure helps provide new meaning to various management concepts. Many authors have suggested useful metaphors in addition to Morgan. For example, Margaret Wheatley (1992) discusses how quantum physics, molecular biology, and chaos theory could help one better understand organizational performance and leadership. Swarm intelligence (Bonabeau & Myers, 2001) is another metaphor to help understand the complexities of organizations and to gain new insights into the changing nature of business environments.

When studying insects and their self-organizing behavior, individuals can learn to stretch their thinking in new ways. Morgan (1993) explains the “termite mound” in his earlier book, Imaginization. This week, you will explore the termite mound concept further and use it for understanding self-organized organizations.

Case Study
The most important time for effective structures are in times of turbulence. A consultant was working in a typical hierarchical company in the auto industry. She was hired to set up a team-based management structure. However, early on, the company received a letter from one of their suppliers that they had 30 days to remove the defects in their products. If the company lost this contract, it might not be able to survive. Jobs were on the line. Employees and leadership were concerned about their future. They had tried all types of quick fixes but nothing seemed to work. Turbulence was ongoing as management tried different possible solutions.

The president called in the consultant and asked for her help. The first thing the consultant did was to remove the structural roles and policies of the management hierarchy and build a team across all sections of the plant that reported back to the rest of the employees in their departments. The cross-section team met weekly to develop their mission, objectives, parameters, and agreements of how to work together on the problem of removing defects. The consultant also set up weekly phone meetings between the company and the supplier to report progress as well as a trip by the entire team to meet onsite with the quality engineers for reality checks, to demonstrate progress, and to issue alerts when the defects were beginning to decrease upon arrival at the customer’s plant.

As the team set up their mission, objectives, data collection process, and analysis to pinpoint where the defects were coming from, employees who were union were working during their free time at home, staying after work, talking to one another and with management over lunch. Interactions and attitudes about work began to change. The team produced the results their customer was looking for. The culture in the supplier’s union plant began to change from this project, as there was less management versus union mentality: Managers and union workers began to talk to one another as partners, they began to see their responsibilities as being a part of helping to solve problems.

In a debriefing with the president, the consultant asked him what was different this time when working on the problem that created success versus the past year where the employees and management could not solve the problem. The president thought for a minute and replied, “The walls were taken down, we began to talk with one another, we built deep relationships with one another and our customer.” The consultant asked, “If this structure works so well in times of stress, why don’t we use it as a permanent structure?” He shook his head and replied, “I do not know. We should.” The company began developing a team-based management structure.

Preparation
Do you know when to restructure? The discussion for this week provides you with the opportunity to gain some experience in thinking about turbulence and how it impacts the need for total change or some changes within an organization.

Day 5: Initial Post
By Day 5, post an analysis of a case of experienced turbulence in an organization of your choice with focus on the role of organizational structure and organic elements during this time of crisis.

More information about this Discussion.MGMT 8005M: Week 3 Discussion 2 Additional Information
• Be sure to read the articles under Resources for the Week and review the videos
under your suggested reading, especially on organic structures and the metaphors
with insects on swarms and termites.
• Select an organization with which you are familiar.
• Define key terms (e.g., turbulence, organic elements) before you begin addressing
the questions.
• Describe what drives the need for organic elements.
• Interpret the actions the organization took (or might have taken) to address
turbulence.
• If the organization has not considered this need, explain what you think the
organization should be doing.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: MGMT_8005M_Week3_Discussion2_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Superior Criteria Excellent Criteria Satisfactory Criteria Marginal Criteria Unacceptable Criteria
Element 1a: Initial Post – Turbulence Case
6 (20%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed analysis of turbulence in an organization by focusing on the role of organizational structure and organic elements during this time of crisis. Several resources and examples support thinking.
5.7 (19%)
Student presents a detailed analysis of turbulence in an organization by focusing on the role of organizational structure and organic elements during this time of crisis. Several resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or details missing.
5.1 (17%)
Student presents an analysis with some details of turbulence in an organization by focusing on the role of organizational structure and organic elements during this time of crisis. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.
4.5 (15%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete analysis with vague or missing details of turbulence in an organization by focusing on the role of organizational structure and organic elements during this time of crisis. Few resources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing or lack clarity.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 1b: Initial Post – Actions to Address Turbulence
6 (20%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed analysis of the actions the organization took (or might have taken) to address turbulence and/or explains what he/she thinks the organization should be doing to address turbulence. Several resources and examples support thinking.
5.7 (19%)
Student presents a detailed analysis of the actions the organization took (or might have taken) to address turbulence and/or explains what he/she thinks the organization should be doing to address turbulence. Several resources or examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors or details missing.
5.1 (17%)
Student presents an analysis with some details of the actions the organization took (or might have taken) to address turbulence and/or explains with some details what he/she thinks the organization should be doing to address turbulence. Some resources or examples support thinking. Some details are missing and/or not fully developed.
4.5 (15%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete analysis with vague or missing details of the actions the organization took (or might have taken) to address turbulence and/or explains with few details what he/she thinks the organization should be doing to address turbulence. Few resources or examples support thinking. Most details are missing or lack clarity.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 1c: Scholarly Sources
4.5 (15%)
Student supports his/her statements with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings as well as two additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications. Citations are relevant, current, and appropriately formatted.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student supports his/her statements with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings as well as two additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications. Citations are relevant, current, and appropriately formatted; however one or two statements are missing a citation.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student supports his/her statements with at least two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings as well as two additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student somewhat supports his/her statements with at least two specific citations from this week’s recommended readings; but may be missing one or two additional sources from relevant peer-reviewed publications and/or there are several statements missing citations and/or citations are not relevant or current.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 2: Follow-up Responses to Colleagues and Interaction
4.5 (15%)
Student engages with several peers bringing the discussion to a higher level of inquiry and investigation. Responses are thorough and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student engages with several peers bringing the discussion to a higher level of inquiry and investigation. Responses fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. However, there are one or two minor errors in content of responses.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student engages with at least two peers and helps extend the discussion. Responses somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student engages with at least two peers. Responses are minimal and do not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes. Responses may lack relevant examples and/or details to support reasoning.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 3: Written Delivery Style & Grammar
4.5 (15%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are no spelling or grammar errors.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are one or two minor errors in spelling or grammar.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student mostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are some errors in spelling or grammar.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student does not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style and/or does not communicate in a cohesive, logical style.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Element 4: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations)
4.5 (15%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are no APA errors. Citations and references support position.
4.28 (14.25%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Citations and references support position. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.
3.83 (12.75%)
Student mostly adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. At least one citation and reference supports position. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.
3.38 (11.25%)
Student demonstrates weak and/or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. No citations or references support opinion and/or several errors in APA format and style are evident.
0 (0%)
Does not meet minimal standards.
Name: MGMT_8005M_Week3_Discussion2_Rubric