Psu 2010 student conference beyond territory and turf

972 views
918 views

Published on

A student

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
972
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
65
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Psu 2010 student conference beyond territory and turf

  1. 1. BEYOND TERRITORY AND TURF: A BOUNDARYLESS ADMINISTRATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION<br />Presenter<br />Cavil Anderson<br />PhD Candidate – <br />WF ED<br />Penn State University<br />Date: March 16, 2010<br />
  2. 2. 1. <br /> 1. Purpose<br /> 2. Purpose of Study<br /> 3. Conceptual Framework<br /> 4. Significance of study <br /> 5. Research question<br /> Sequence of the Presentation<br />
  3. 3. - A variety of organizational forms and management<br /> structures to enhance communication, reduce risk,<br /> and control uncertainty<br /> - Unintended effects on organizational design, the <br /> job itself, various human resources planning, <br /> control and development systems, things such as <br /> physical barriers, offices, and also organizational <br /> culture (Cavaleri & Fearon, 1996, p. 154). <br />Purpose <br />
  4. 4. - Different departments acting in isolation or even <br /> in conflict with each other. <br /> - Incapable of replicating operations to create peak<br /> performance for the organization.<br /> - Assessing - patterns of disconnect according to<br /> Oshry (1995) - poor communication, duplication<br /> of work, internal competition, lack of synergy, <br /> and shortsighted solutions (p. 1). <br />purpose…continue<br />
  5. 5. - - further complicated by the focus component parts of an organization, such as processes, people, and <br /> technology within functional units. <br /> - Bryan and Joyce (2007) “one company governance <br /> model” cannot mobilize mind power, labor, and <br /> capital on an enterprise-wide basis (p. 63). <br /> - first decade of the century is behind us, In essence, <br /> the cultural context in higher education has changed<br /> but the management paradigm has not. <br />purpose…continue<br />
  6. 6. - The walls between departments continue to exist, <br /> decisions continue to be made at the top, and the<br /> structure of the organization remain hierarchical.<br /> - Emphasis on top-down planning and control repress <br /> innovation reduce the chances for an institution <br /> becoming a learning organization. <br /> purpose…continue<br />
  7. 7. The permanency of these walls has led to the <br /> coining of the phrase silos or silo mentality,<br /> which for the purpose of this paper refers to:<br />“where inside an organization there are separate<br /> departments which do not communicate with <br /> each other and are also actively trying to <br /> sabotage each other” (Garland, 2000, p. 1).These <br /> conditions are also thought of as the creation and <br /> function of an individual or of an organization’s <br /> culture. <br />Definition….Silo’s<br />
  8. 8. Something to consider….<br />The concept of a boundaryless organization – an institution without divisions or walls in higher education – is, according to Alfred and Rosevear (2000), a “fantasy” (p. 5). <br />
  9. 9. 5). <br /> - widespread / inevitable, leaders opt for tweaking their <br /> organizations rather than transforming them (Bryan & Joyce, <br /> 2007, p. 42-43).<br /> - real cause of this dysfunction is systemic and predictable, <br /> according to Gharajedaghi (2006) will require a dual shift in <br /> paradigm.<br /> - Galbraith, Downey and Kates (2002) suggests that the need for a<br /> reconfigurable organization arises from the decline in the <br /> sustainability of competitive advantage (p7). <br />continue…<br />
  10. 10. - <br /> - Hoffman & Summers (2000) and Diamond <br /> (2002) list shrinking budgets and enrollment<br /> challenges, shifting demographics, <br /> technological advances and a greater demand<br /> for skills based education institutions. These<br /> forces acknowledge that the landscape is <br /> about to change.<br /> continue…<br />
  11. 11. - growing demand for institutions to become joined-up. <br /> - This paper intends to argue against on the phenomenon of silos,<br />or as it is also referred to as, departmental politics, divisional <br /> rivalry, or turf warfare(Lencione, 2006, p. 175) in favor of a <br /> “boundaryless” management and administration for higher <br /> education. <br /> - It is also important to point out that “boundaryless” should<br /> not be taken laterally. The purpose of this paper will <br /> therefore to investigate whether a boundaryless <br /> management and administration in higher education is <br /> practicable.<br />Research focus<br />
  12. 12. An example of an organizational chart for a university<br />Rules Coordination Officerules@u.washington.eduModified: January 22, 2010<br />
  13. 13. Several research questions will be asked to guide this <br /> study:<br /> 1) do institutions of higher learning think broadly <br /> about the interdependence of staff, customers, and<br /> beneficiaries? <br /> 2) To what extent do institutions search for solutions<br /> to break down traditional barriers that divide staff and<br /> distance the institution from customers? <br /> 3) How can the speed and efficiency of services between <br /> administrative departments be improved? <br />Research Questions<br />
  14. 14. Conceptual Framework: Galbraith's Star Model <br />
  15. 15. Socio-Technical Systems Approach<br />
  16. 16. The methodology for this paper will be a literature<br /> study evaluating “boundarylessness” at General <br /> Electric using the five component parts of <br /> Galbraith star model. Boundarylessness was <br /> developed at General Electric through the <br /> introduction of a process called “Work-Out” in <br /> 1989. The process “Work- Out” is based on the <br /> premise that “those closest to the work know it best”. <br />Methodology<br />
  17. 17. Proponents of boundarylessness belief that:<br /> 1. Vertical boundaries between levels and ranks of <br /> people, <br /> 2. Horizontal boundaries between functions and<br /> disciplines, <br /> 3. External boundaries between the organization and its <br /> suppliers, customers, and regulators and <br /> 4. Geographic boundaries between locations, cultures <br /> markets have stifled the flow of information and ideas <br /> among employees. <br />Continue…<br />
  18. 18. - The significance according to Linden (1994) and Parker (1994) is<br /> that the effort to provide a seamless experience for consumers <br /> may evoke a pleasant sense of déjà vu for many. <br /> - Organizations that move quickly, that provide variety, <br /> customization, and personal services are actually relearning <br /> something that once came naturally. <br /> - The assumption of this era is that boundarylessness proposes <br /> speed, flexibility, integration, and, innovation as opposed to size, <br /> role clarity, specialization and control associated with the <br /> previous era.<br />Significance of the study<br />
  19. 19. After collecting and analyzing the data, the <br /> researcher willdetermine if a boundaryless <br /> culture encourages high levels of transformational <br /> behavior (speed, efficiency and effectiveness, <br /> flexibility, integration, innovation, and cost savings). <br /> The implications may require deliberate changes in <br /> the structure and processes of an organization driven <br /> by institutional leadership. <br />Data Analysis/Implications<br />
  20. 20. Thank you…<br />For information about the study, please contact:<br />Cavil Anderson<br />csa140@psu.edu<br />717 877 0144<br />Q & A Session<br />
  21. 21.  <br />Alfred, R., & Rosevear S. (2000). Organizational structure, management, and leadership for the future. In A.M. Hoffmann & R. W. Summers (Eds.), Managing colleges anduniversities: Issues for leadership (pp. 1-28). West Port, CT: Greenwood.<br />Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking <br /> the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey Bass<br />Bryan, L. L., & Joyce, C. J. (2007). Creating wealth from talent in the 21st – Century organization, mobilizing minds. New York: McKinsey. <br />Cavaleri, S., & Fearon, D. (1996). Managing in organizations that learn. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. <br />Diamond, M.R.(20020. Field guide to academic leadership: A publication of the national <br /> academic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass <br />Galbraith, J., Downey, D., & Kate, A. (2002). Designing dynamic organizations: A hands-on <br /> guide for leaders at all levels. New York: Amacom<br />Gharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture. London: Elsevier.<br />References<br />
  22. 22. Kates, Amy., & Galbraith, J. (2007). Designing your organization: Using the star model to solve 5 critical design challenges. San Francisco: Jossey Bass<br />Lencione, P. (2006). Silos, politics and turf wars. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.<br /> Linden R., M. (1994). Seamless Government: A practical guide to reengineering in the public <br /> sector. San Francisco: Jossey Bass<br />Oden, H.W. (1999). Transforming the organization: A social –technical approach. West port, CT: Quorum Books. <br />Oshry, B. (1995). Seeing systems. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.<br />Parker, G. M. (1994). Cross functional teams: Working with allies, enemies & other strangers. Francisco: Jossey-Bass<br />Rothwell, W. J. Sullivan, R. (2005). Practicing organization development: A guide for consultants. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. <br />Ulrich, D., & Kerr, S., & Ashkenas, R. (2002). GE Work-Out. How to implement GE’s <br /> revolutionary method for busting bureaucracy and attacking organization problems - fast<br /> New York: McGraw<br />References continue…<br />

×