A633.3.3.RB_DiazBrian

The sheer notion of working for an organization that employs the principles of self-management is intriguing.  A system of self-managed employees seems to have both advantages and disadvantages.  Eliminating managers can be a cost saving measure for an organization.  However this model is not for every organization.  “Assuming that each manager earns three times the average salary of a first-level employee, direct management costs would account for 33% of the payroll. Any way you cut it, management is expensive” (Hamel, 2011, para. 1).  In a self-managed organization employee salaries are based on seniority and task level/difficulty.  In a self-managed organization there is no boss directing others.  Employees share their responsibilities, communicate openly, and in the case of Morning Star, are contractually obligated to perform at a high level.   At Morning Star, “its organizational vision, is to create a company in which all team members ‘will be self-managing professionals, initiating communications and the coordination of their activities with fellow colleagues, customers, suppliers, and fellow industry participants, absent directives from others.’” (Hamel, 2011, para. 17).  At Morning Star disagreements or resolutions take place among staff members in an interesting manner.  If employees cannot resolve an issue one on one they can request that a colleague act as mediator in order to reach a resolution.  If one party does not agree with the mediator’s decision then a “jury” of employees presides over the issue much like our in our judicial system.  It is an interesting approach to conflict resolution.  Some of the challenges a self-managed organization might face are employees finding it difficult to adjust to this type of environment, complex hiring system, and accountability challenges.

 St. Luke’s Communications is another organization that is self-managed and has experienced tremendous success due to its company’s structure.  Coutu (2000) wrote “the firm requires employees to publicly evaluate their work once a month—that’s scary. But the agency rarely fires people—that’s safe. Indeed, it invites all employees to share their personal stories in the supportive environments of company get-togethers and outings. When employees sign on, they contractually agree to do the job at St. Luke’s that best suits them—often as determined in reviews by other employees” (para. 5).  Turnover at this organization is low and that speaks volumes of how their employees feel about the company.  Most organizations are so focused on meeting objectives, identifying opportunities, strategizing, and implementing change that I think it is very common for one important ingredient to be lost in the shuffle.  Happy employees.  When employees are happy they perform better.  Positivity can counter stress and result in a harmonious workplace which in turn can boost morale, motivation, and even health.  In my organization I have seen my share of stress and unhappiness with my team.  I have also had several members of my team confide in me their displeasure of our leadership.  These emotions do not foster productivity.  They foster resentment, significantly reduced productivity, and can cause relationships to sour.  My team and I share passion.  Our values and beliefs mirror one another.  However, due to the hierarchical makeup of our organization we sometimes feel under appreciated, undervalued, and ultimately unhappy.  Hamel (2011) wrote “the typical management hierarchy increases the risk of large, calamitous decisions. As decisions get bigger, the ranks of those able to challenge the decision maker get smaller. Hubris, myopia, and naïveté can lead to bad judgment at any level, but the danger is greatest when the decision maker’s power is, for all purposes, uncontestable. Give someone monarchlike authority, and sooner or later there will be a royal screwup. A related problem is that the most powerful managers are the ones furthest from frontline realities” (para. 3).

A company that reflects the model of self-management seen at Morning Star and St. Luke’s is W.L. Gore and Associates.  It is a privately held company that creates products for fabric laminates, medical implants, and fiber technologies.  They are a team based organization.  Their culture states that the organization has “no traditional organizational charts, no chains of command, nor predetermined channels of communication.  Instead, we communicate directly with each other and are accountable to fellow members of our multi-disciplined teams. We encourage hands-on innovation, involving those closest to a project in decision making. Teams organize around opportunities and leaders emerge. This unique kind of corporate structure has proven to be a significant contributor to associate satisfaction and retention” (“Our Culture,” 2015).  This organization empowers its employees drive projects through collaboration, communication, and creativity.  Quite the opposite of how my own organization is structured.  My organization could benefit by having a simpler hierarchical structure.  Currently if you view our organizational chart you will be looking at a 10 page document.  10 pages!  http://www.erau.edu/Assets/university/data/org-chart-2015.pdf#search=organizational%20chart.  How can an organization effectively make decisions when there are that many levels?  This creates immense challenges for an organization such as sub-cultures which can create further challenges for departments that are supposed to be working together.  It was refreshing to hear one of our new Directors recently acknowledge that this was a concern he was addressing.  As he moved up the ladder he experienced firsthand the disconnect in his own department.  Now that he is in a position of leadership he is changing that culture.  He is fostering an environment that is more collaborative, less stressful, and more involved in the decision making process.  If other department heads would do the same I feel a lot of concerns can be overcome and improvements can be made.  Changes such as the ones he has made will move our organization forward in the future.  At some point our company structure needs to be redacted and simplified.  If it can work for the three companies above, there must be something to flat organizations worth looking in to.

Coutu, D. L. (2000). Creating the Most Frightening Company on Earth. Harvard Business Review, 78(5), 142-150.

An Overview of Gore (2015). Retrieved from http://www.gore.com/en_xx/index.html

Hamel, G. (2011). First, Let's Fire all the Managers. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 48-60.