Practical Organization Design E-Book

Jan Olsson

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 313

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015

Beschreibung

This book is a source for inspiration to managers and organization designers. It describes how internal structures of an organization can be designed to enable sustainable success in a constantly changing environment. The book helps the reader to understand how to do the design of an organization. It integrates organizational theories with hands-on and practical approaches in how to get the work done. Most organizations have a great potential to improve performance and market success if they apply a systematic approach to organization design. Elements in the internal structure have to work together and interact with customers and other external stakeholders. Sustainable efficiency can be achieved if we build effective organizations by the design of a structured Management System. This book describes a systematic approach in the development of a Management Systems. It explains how the design of business logic is done in a Management System Architecture. The book then describes how this Architecture is transformed into a practical implementation by using seven Management System Building Blocks. • Purpose • Organization Structure • Process & Rules • Governing • Plans • Records • Deliverables More info at www.managementsystem.se

Leseprobe

The knowledge to design a Management System is a key asset for any organization.

INTRODUCTION

I know why I wrote this book, but why shall you read it?

It has long been a dream for me to write a book. I have hoped to one day be able to put my own book in the book shelf. And to proudly show it for family, friends and colleagues. As a kind of footprint of me.

Year 2010 I started to write this book. During dark Swedish winter evenings I wrote texts and created pictures. Then came the spring, our garden and house got higher priority, the writing was put on hold. I reopened the book project during the winter months of next year. New spring arrived and I became too busy. Next winter and a new restart. At the end of 2014 I had about 130 pages written but I had never had the time to put together a good structure for the book. Then I got a fantastic opportunity to spend half a year, more or less fully on the book. This made it possible to finalize my book project. My dream came true.

I have during my working career constantly tried to find ways to make the Management System more helpful for an organization. I have learnt from others, read books and transformed this knowledge to practical implementations. As the years went by I was more and more convinced that most organizations would gain huge advantages if they used a systems approach when internal ways of working was developed. The way an organization is designed cannot be efficient enough if we isolated develops processes, or if we in isolation replaces organization structures, or adds targets in isolation from other parts of the internal structures, etc.

From this need I tried to find guidance and practical approaches. I found good books, real examples and knowledgeable people that gave me parts of the answer. How to do Strategy development, how to do Business Re-engineering, how to create Business Balanced Scorecards, how to build Organizational structures, etc. But I did not find how to design the whole organization using a system approach.

With this insight and with my practical experience of building Management Systems, together with my dream, I decided to write this book.

I hope that you will be inspired. I hope you learn something more about organization design and that you get practical guidance to improve your organization. This is why I think you shall read this book.

Malmö 10 July 2015

The ultimate Management System is designed to enable growth of sustainable business in a constantly changing environment.

Content

Part I Introduction – What this book is all about

1 Why I think this book has a value

2 My background

3 The dilemma with the term Organization

4 Technocratic approach to the design of a Management System

Part II A design concept of the Management System

1 Introduction to Part II

2 Fundamentals impacting the design of a Management System

The fundamental law behind how to design Management Systems

A stable Management System often becomes an old Management System

Stability of constant change

Make changes sustainable

Why some managers do more instead of adding structures

The Management System in the DNA of the Organization

3 Reference Model for a Management System

System approach

Mental Models

Reference model overview

4 Management System Architecture

Design Layers in the Architecture

External Environment

Business Logic

Value Creation Chain

Responsibilities

Controls

Use “Outside In – Inside Out” thinking in the design approach

5 Management System Building Blocks

The 7 Building Blocks

Purpose

Organization Structure

Process and Rules

Governing

Plans

Records

Deliverables

6 How to use the Management System Reference Model

Understand what you need

Key design rules for the Management System

Get organized and build knowledge

Part III How to establish a Management System

1 Introduction to Part III

2 Benefits from having a described Management System

The library

Secure fulfillment of external requirements

One Management System

3 Build the Framework

Document Management

Business Manual

Content of a Business Manual

Content of the Building Blocks

Additional content in the Business Manual

4 Build the Management System

Define the work

Build the content

Deploy

Monitor compliance

Part IV Improve internal performance

1 Introduction to Part IV

2 Measure performance

Necessity to measure

Management by Objectives

Lagging and Leading Indicators

Business Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map

Operational performance

Change project performance

Do not overdo the measurements

3 Design Organization Structures

Key elements in an Organization Structure

Role of Organizational Entity Manager

Design the Organization Structure

Responsibility Assignment Matrix

4 Design Process Structures

Key elements in a Process Structure

Role of a Process Owner

Design the Process Structure

Process Management

5 Design Meeting Structure

6 Change Programs

Part V Make strategy happen

1 Introduction to Part V

2 Strategy and Management system

3 Transforming Strategy to Management System Design

Business Logic

Value Creation Chain

Responsibilities

Controls

Part VI References

1 Literature and web

2 Design Rules & Document Outlines

Design Rules

Document outlines

3 Index

4 Jan Olsson – The Author

Part I

Introduction – What this book is all about

1 Why I think this book has a value

A Management System is a structured way to control activities within a company, or any other type of organization. Often people think of international ISO standards, certifications and audits when one discuss a Management System. Too often the discussion is about the burden the Management System may be to the people in the organization, documentation needs, reporting and even bureaucracy. At the same time, the same people having problem with a Management System, often search for knowledge and practical example of how to improve performance in their own organization, how to improve business results, how to decrease costs, etc. These people, often managers but not only, read books, undertake trainings, attend seminars and conferences and ask knowledgeable consultancy firms to do analyses and propose changes. This is not seen as burden to organizations, rather as opportunities to improve performance.

What is the difference between a Management System and the different concepts like Business Model Canvas, Lean, Agile, Business Balanced Scorecard, Business Process re-engineering, etc.? How come people find values from these concepts but think of Management System as a dull burden? My believe is that the Management System indent to cover the full business, all parts of the organization, and for this reason can be too complex. The above exemplified concepts covers different aspects of the full system. If it is too complex we need to find tools and we need to simplify. But if we, by doing this, excludes perspectives of the full design, we may sub-optimize or create design solutions that does not fit together in all parts. If the aim is to implement a Management System there is a risk then to move towards compliance thinking, not performance thinking. Due to lack of understanding of the possibilities of a Management System, we settled with target to comply with one of the ISO standards for Management System. And this can be done even though we have a really bad design1. This may frame our minds from the possibilities to embrace relevant concept and methods to build a structured system design on how to manage activities within an organization to reach objectives.

If we on the other hand understand the potential of a structured design of our Management System, it becomes hard to get good help when we want to build it. It is important to acknowledge the Management System as an open system that interact with the surrounding environment. It contains a set of elements like Targets, Organization Structures, Processes, Measurements, etc. And in order to design an efficient Management System, we cannot simply focus on some parts, do that good and hope to achieve excellence. As an example, we all understand that a good Organization Structure is important for any organization. But we also understand that this is not the full picture. There are more parts important to gain efficiency. For those who has done some type of technical design work, we understand that a system design need to optimize a number of, sometimes contra dictionary requirements, in order to achieve the performance from the system we need. To do this we need to understand all building blocks of the design and balance the design of each building block towards the performance need for the full system.

I have two reasons to write this book. Firstly, it has been a dream for me to one day write a book. To do this gives me the pleasure of writing and explaining things in which I have long experience. It is as well challenging and it develops my competence. We all know that when you have to explain things it often requires that you think once again to really understand what you tries to explain. Secondly, I have not yet found a book that cover how to do a full design of a Management System. A book that describes all of the building blocks needed to design a Management System, with the purpose to improve effectiveness and efficiency. A book that combines practical experience with theories. A book that covers how business logic impacts value creation chains, how it calls for specific logic in the design of internal processes, ways to find an optimal Organization Structure and how to monitor execution. All structured in a coherent design we call a Management System.

My hope is that you, the reader, find this book valuable if you want to understand:

What is a Management System and how does it support an organization?

How do I build a Management System?

How do I improve internal performance using a Management System?

How do I use a Management System to transform Strategies in to result?

I truly believe that most organizations has a great improvement potential and possibilities to achieve sustainable market successes via a true system approach in the design of its internal structures.

1 This is like doing a control of the car that it fulfill governmental regulations to ensure safety. It can be a really bad car even though it is approved to use.

2 My background

Back in the mid 80’s I became interested in Quality. I remember the structure of IEEE’s2 Quality Assurance Plan explained in a training course. For me this was like the truth had been given to me. The structure of this Quality Assurance Plan explained what you need to do in order to achieve Quality in product development. In those days I was a System Engineer and Project Leader for development of software solutions and products for petrol stations. I was working for a successful mid-size company. But as a consequence of the success it had growth-problems in the development department.

The structure of the IEEE Quality Assurance Plan gave me a Reference Model for product development. I took the knowledge back home and started to implement all parts of this Reference Model in hour development organization. We learnt a language, we collected our ways of working in a common structure, and we shared experience, planned and executed development projects according to the content of our Reference Model. We called it the SW Quality Assurance Plan.

Today, 30 years later, I still work with implementation of a Reference Model for organizations. But today I have the scope of a full Company. I am no longer a System Engineer for SW development project but rather a “System Engineer” for development of Organization Architecture or Organizations Design. Over the year I have worked with all between small (5 persons) to big (600+ persons) product development projects. I have worked with business organizations in Production Industries, Service Industries, Governmental societies, Telecommunication Industry. I have worked with local companies and companies with operations spread over the world in different time zones. The leading star for my professional carrier has been to bring order and efficiency in the ways of working.

Similar to the experience from the IEEE Quality Assurance Plan I have over the years developed a structure of Building Blocks for any type of Organization. It is obvious, thinking of it, that efficiency in an organization cannot be fully achieved only working with definition of roles and responsibilities. Furthermore efficiency cannot only be achieved by Process Management or by applying internal governance structures. To achieve improved efficiency one has to work with a full set of building blocks, covering all relevant part of an organizations design. The building blocks has each a specific purpose, yet they all together form a system containing the building blocks and their interrelationships.

With the understanding of the Building Blocks top management can design an organization that fulfill operational needs from customers and other stakeholders. Middle managers may use the building blocks to design their part of the organization, still being a part of the complete organization. By understanding the building blocks, employees in the organization may find answers to question related to ways of working. Altogether, with good knowledge of the building blocks defined for the organization, performance can be measured and efficiency improved in a structured and systematic way.

In my latest professional years I find more and more possibilities for any type of organization to improve effectiveness by aligning internal structures with the external business environment. An organization that works with strategies and business models has to also work with the design of internal structures and ways of working to enable full use of strategies. Furthermore it is generally understood that strategies are all about execution and that today’s business environment are constantly and rapidly changing. This puts strong requirements on adaptive changes of the organization in order to maintain sustainable business. This can, in my view not be achieved unless you design your organization as an open and adaptive system towards the business environment you select to add value into. For this you have to understand the design mechanism of the building blocks and how different design parameters may impact internal structures.

3 The dilemma with the term Organization

When I started to write this book I immediately struggled with the use of the term Organization. Talking about Management System it is of course impossible not to use the term Organization. But the term has different meanings, and it is important to correctly understand this and to use them wisely. It is furthermore important that you as a reader understand how I have used the word.

From the Cambridge Dictionary3 we find three different usages of the term Organization.

It is a

group

“Organization is a group of people who work together in a structured way for a shared purpose”.

It is an

arrangement

“The planning of an activity or event”.

It is a

system

“The way in which something is done or arranged”.

You will later in this book read that Organization, in the meaning of a System, is one important element in the Management System. This usage would be confusing as Organization also could be used for a Group. With this later meaning we use Organization as a noun for a company, non-profit organization, administration, etc. And this Organization needs a Management System that has one element, which is an Organization. This is truly confusing. My solution has been to use the term Organization Structure when I use the term being one of the elements in a Management System. I use the term Organization for companies, non-profit organizations, administrations or different kind of Groups set up to reach a purpose.

To minimize the risk for further confusion I have not used the term Organization in the meaning of an Arrangement.

3 (Cambridge, n.d.)

4 Technocratic approach to the design of a Management System

A Management System should be designed based on a generic model on what it should contain. You may think of this as the generic building blocks of an Organization. The ISO Management System standards put explicit requirements on the content and has a generic definition of a Management System. But the ISO standards does not tell us how to do the specific design of a Management System.

If we search in the literature to find examples of such generic models we should include the term Organization Model in the search. A Management System I view as a part of the wider term Organization Model. This term is more commonly used compared to Management System, in the context of how to design internal structures of an Organization. There exists a number of different models for Organization Design. In the book "Guide to Organizational Design”4 Naomi Stanford presents an overview of seven different system models of organization design. Certainly two of the models, Mc-Kinsey 7-S model, Galbraith’s Star Model, has a big impact on the way many think of organization models. All models described by Stanford includes “soft” elements, e.g. people, behavior, leadership, culture, etc. In the case of the McKinsey model four elements are soft. These four are style, shared values, staff and skills. Three of the element are “hard” elements. These are system, strategy and structure.

In my approach to design of a Management System, I do not include any “soft” elements. This is because I have a technocratic approach to the design of Management Systems. I think of the Management System as the tangible building blocks one should use to build an Organization. It may be an Organization Structure, Competences, Processes, etc. These you can design, develop and implement in an organization. As such building blocks are tangible, everyone working in an organization can relate to them and use them. This means that the Management System can be made visible and explicit. And I believe that explicit building blocks has direct impact on the people’s behavior in an organization and enables control of executions. The design of explicit building blocks enables management of an Organization.

I think of the Management System as the tangible building blocks one should use to build an Organization.

This approach to organization development or design of Organization Structures is a rather technocratic approach, and I find it important to understand for any manager. But I like to make it very clear that I do not neglect the importance of “soft” elements of an Organization Model. People, behavior, styles, culture, leadership, etc. are of course very important for any organization in order to reach its objectives and ambitions. But I also want to make my standpoint clear; you shall not mix the two aspects of soft and hard elements in one dimension. It is like different kind of worlds and has to be handled differently. At the same time I believe that a bad design of a Management System creates uncertainties and opens up for inefficient behavior in an organization. And a well-designed Management System supports positive behavior.

4 (Stanford, 2007), page 22.

Part II

A design concept of the Management System

1 Introduction to Part II

One of the criticisms of a Management System is that it tends to cement ways of working too much. The included structures, procedures and templates often becomes a burden for the Organization. The content might not match today’s situation. Or the content of the Management System has grown with every new possible risk identified for the operations. Controls has been added to the system, without removing old ones. I do not think anyone wants to build such a Management System, but it is unfortunately often the result.

To overcome this we have to build a Management System in such a way that it always support the realities of every Organization. The design approach has to acknowledge that we live in a world of constant changes. An Organization which do not adapt to external changes will stiffen and lose its effectiveness. In some business environment this can happen within months, in others changes may take years. When you have accepted the need to do constant changes there are three high level and basic implications on the way to develop your Management System.

You cannot make one grand central design of the Management System which covers every detail about how things should be done. This typically takes too long time. At the time you are read, the world has changed again.

You have to measure performance, implement feedback loops and take actions to be able to correctly adapt to reality.

You need to delegate responsibilities and involve people in the design of the Management System. This increase speed of change and adaptability.

It may seem confusing and too risky for some managers to accept that you cannot do one grand design of the Management System and that you shall not control all details. The devil is in the details you may say and yes some details you really need to have profound control of. But this does not legitimize the need to control all details. All employees has to, in their respective role, be empowered to take control. Still all within the same Organization should work towards common objectives. The approach in the design of the Management System should be to have a common Reference Model, for all in an Organization to understand and work within. Supported by the reference model, each employee shall either use defined ways of working or develop local variants content or detailed variants content. Not in isolation, but as part of a common system. A Management System shall support the objectives of the full Organization as well as local needs.

Figure 1; Management System Reference Model

In this book I define a Management System Reference Model developed from practical usage. It contains two perspectives; Management System Architecture and Management System Building Blocks.

The aim with the Management System Architecture is to guide managers in the high level design of the Management System, as seen from the context and wanted behavior of the Organization. The Management System Architecture is developed to fit external environmental needs and behaviors. It shall facilitate the design of internal structures of the Organization to meet overarching objectives. The aim with the Management System Building Blocks are then to concretize what to build. The general content of the Management System Reference Model, presented in this book, will guide Management System designers of any Organization. The specific content of a Management System Reference Model, developed in an Organization, will guide employees on how to do their work.

A Management System should never be considered ready and without needs of changes. Still every one of the baselines used in the Organization has to be clear and stable. Changes to a baseline has to be introduced in a controlled way. You should never add more content in the Management System than what is needed. Improvements should be done stepwise as long as we change running business. By doing controlled, small and stepwise changes to established baseline, a new baseline will be ready before circumstances has changed again.

The Management System should be build “good enough”. It is often more important to monitor performance continuously and improve where needed compared to spending resources on the creation of “good to have” features in the Management System. And never include more controls than required to manage risks and support objectives of the Organization. Make people in the organization part of the design work.

The Organization will need some few experts on how to develop the Management System. You should also use these experts to train and guide others in the Management System. Use the centrally designed Management System Architecture to delegate the design responsibilities of Management System Building Blocks. Ensure implementation of measurements to understand performance and implement feedback loops. These are important for local improvements of the Management System Building Blocks. And they are important for central monitoring, evaluation and continuous improvement of the Management System Architecture.

2 Fundamentals impacting the design of a Management System

The fundamental law behind how to design Management Systems

Every organization is a complex system of activities. An efficient organization has the ability to create values for customers, and at the same time satisfy the owners. Successful and sustainable organizations has the ability to maintain a positive level of satisfaction among all stakeholders. Not all organizations are in such a positive situation and there are a number of different methods and scientific studies available to help managers improve efficiency and effectiveness. From the early years of the 20th century when Taylor wrote about Scientific Management, over Juran’s Quality Control and later Total Quality Management, Business Process Re-engineering, Lean and lately the popular Agile approaches.

The optimal design of a Management System has to balance Lead Time, Resource Utilization and Variations to achieve wanted performance.

Behind all of these methods and approaches there exist a fundamental law on how to design effective and efficient organizations. An Organization is a complex system of infinite number of queue systems5. Work is ongoing, work is waiting and variations in the work pile up delays. This is true for each individual as well as for the full organization.

Figure 2; Fundamentals in the design of a Management System

It is impossible to maximize all three of above at the same time. Assume you are able to use all available resources 100% at the same time as all customers are served as soon as they enter into the organization. The customers are happy, and the flow of customers increases. The system will then become overloaded and Lead Time will increase dramatically. Customers will become very dissatisfied.

How has different organization design approaches tried to manage this fundamental law? Scientific Management argued that all activities shall be identified and standardized. This approach tries to minimize process variation and by that achieve efficiency. Business Process Re-engineering focus lead time by identifying unnecessary activities and simplify process flow. Agile work methods tries to balance according to the law. Agile manage utilization of resources by the use of backlog planning, it standardizes work tasks in sprints and minimize lead time by waiting to start sprints until there is a customer order.

How can we use the knowledge of this fundamental law? When you design the business model of a company and designs the internal structures you have to identify key performance requirements and optimize the high level design based on this. If cost is critical, resource utilization should be maximized and long lead times can be the result. If flexibility is important you may have to have some amount of resources available for work. If lead time has to be short, 100% resource utilization will not support success unless you have full control of customers input and process variations.

A stable Management System often becomes an old Management System

The structure of a Management System was originally developed as a tool for quality assurance of suppliers. It was used to ensure accurate delivery of specified quality for a specific product. With this purpose the need to implement readiness for future changes was not very important. Changes to manage was mainly focused on problems with product quality. Over time the application of a Management System was broaden to cover not only a specific customer and product but more the full operation and the ability to meet quality requirements for all customers. Over time other type of Management Systems like Environmental, Information Security, or Occupational Health and Safety was incorporated in the framework of an Organizations Management System and the purpose and scope has changed quite substantial.

Main initial driver to implement Management Systems is still often the need to achieve a 3rd party ISO certificate for one or several of the Management System standards. For many Organizations top management has declared that the Management System shall support the Organization to deliver what customers want, pro-actively correct mistakes and constantly improve ways of working6. But often, the main reason and most focus is to achieve ISO certification, as requested by customers. Too often managers and other employees do not find that the Management System support them doing great, rather it has become a structure of controls to ensure that they do not do wrong things. People working with the Management System, often Quality Managers and the related staff functions, struggles with how to make the Management System supportive in a more positive way. All of course would like to have a Management System that the Organization want to have, not only something they need to have.

If we for a moment think of what the requirements on a Management System are, generally speaking. What do we have to fulfill in order to have a proper Management System? Of course, we have to comply with the requirements set out in the ISO standards, as an example the Quality Management System requirements in the ISO 90017. But these requirements are very static and not very detailed. It is possible to meet the ISO requirements, get a certificate and have an Organization with very bad performance. Other requirements then? Yes, for sure to support operation. But what is that? Is it to ensure that we have plans and records, that we have processes and knows how to handle errors reported? Is it to ensure that we do not do mistakes?

If this is the only requirements on the Management System it will become very stable, safeguarding and focused on controls to protect organization from mistakes done by employees. Stability and safeguarding will be focused. Change needs coming from other type of requirements is often not supported. If changes are done in the Management System, unfortunately this is often done by adding request to the people working in the Organization. More controls, more procedures, more records. Over time the Organization get a very stable, but old, Management System.

Stability of constant change

I think we all accept the fact that the world is constantly changing. New competitors grew stronger, products becomes obsolete, new opportunities rises, political landscape changes, tax rates decrease, tax rate increase, etc. Changes are constantly happening, that is a fact.

Figure 3; A gyroscope is stable as long as it spins.

Unfortunately people, humans in general, like to think that there is one solution that will work forever. “– If we once and for all find how to do things, this will forever be the way to do things.” “– If we really understand all requirements, give the designers no disruptions, they will come up with the ultimate solution”. “– As we belong to the central functions of the Organization, we will be able to do the best design of the Management System”.

Many years ago I had a discussion with a Swedish technical attaché working in San Francisco, California. We talked about how to implement a good quality system in a company, if there is no good system in place. His belief was that there are only two situations where it is possible to implement a good Management System. Either it is in the startup of a company, or it is if the organization is facing an existential challenge. Only then can you make radical changes in the Organization.

I today believe this is partly true. Unless there is a real need and open acceptance, it is almost impossible to do major changes in the way the Organization works and are structured. It may be possible to do major changes if it is done as a consequence of changes in strategy.

The most important learning and approach when you design a Management System is to ensure adaptability, mechanism for constant improvement. One such mechanism is the feedback loop.

When you think of the feedback loops and how to implement them it is important to ensure speed, from observation to change. This is one important reason why central functions in an Organization should work with the strategic, not detailed, issues of the Management System Design.

It is unfortunately to often seen that Management System design, down to detailed level of procedures, are managed in a centralized organization. The speed in which changes happens becomes too slow. If you, as an example, lack an important need not covered by the existing Management System, the central responsible may tell you either this specific need is too rare to be supported. Or the central responsible person may tell you that a central project will start to make investigation and analysis of possible changes. All of this is of course not good enough and basically it is because speed of change is not considered in the approach to the design of the Management System.8

Make changes sustainable

It is interesting to observe changes in an Organization over a longer time period. The lasting result of a change are too often very little or sometimes nothing. Even though a big change initiative had been launched with big hopes, good plans and drive, the change may fade away unless it change behavior of people. All groups of people do act in "entropy", they will change towards natural structure. What is then a natural structure of individuals, single persons? I believe all will do what feels best to do. A strong positive feeling is when you are seen and are acknowledge for your contribution to the Organization. A strong negative feeling is to be punished or corrected for not doing as expected. Each individual tries to get positive feelings and tries to avoid negative feelings. There is a very famous observation done, called the Hawthorne effect9. It was found in a factory that the production increased when level of light increased. Strangely it was also found that production improved as well when level of light decreased. Basically the Hawthorne effect tells that if you give people positive attention, motivation to do the job increases.

I believe there are basically four categories of people or groups of people that have the greatest impact on motivation for single individuals. The employee will be motivated, either by gaining positive attention from these or by avoiding negative attention.

The person itself.

Some individuals have a very strong self-motivation, they will act based on what they them-self feel good to do.

In this category I also sort in people with very little feedback from surrounding groups or people. With a lack of feedback, people will do what gives them the best feeling.

Close colleagues.

The people in the workgroup do give each individual motivation to act in a certain way.

Manager (s) / Authorities

People in this group hands out tasks, set salary, enable personal development or gives feedback (values) on the work conducted.

Customers, internal or external.

These are the one that are dependent on the result from the work the person do.

Figure 4; Motivation drivers

When you design a Management System some learnings are to be taken from above. First of all, just because you short term get lots of positive results when you do a change, it is not necessarily because you did a good change. It may as well be just because the change created positive attention to people, making them more motivated to work. Secondly, you have to design solutions in the Management System to make individuals feel good. Either by allowing each one to work in a way that them-self find attractive, or they feel it works well with colleagues to do it the described way, or it makes the boss giving the individual positive attention, or the customers tells that the result is excellent.

It is in reality not possible to design the perfect Management System where all are very motivated by positive feelings. There is a need to add some authority and rules that not always are positive motivators. But you should try to make them as few as possible. The most rewarding and most sustainable Management System is the one where individuals get fast feedback loops from people that matters to them.

Why some managers do more instead of adding structures

Managers are not afraid of structures, but all managers are afraid of not delivering results. I have often struggled with the question why some managers do not want to apply structure and control. I never understood why improved control could be a problem. Why would clear responsibilities, processes, checklist etc. be a risk to the operation? We all want better result, right? If we ensure that people follow some procedures based on good practices it cannot be a bad thing, or can it?

Figure 5; Cowboy management.

But actually, it can be dangerous for an organization to apply structure and control. I do realize this now. It is dangerous for an organization, with the ad hoc cowboy approach, to change its behavior towards more structure and control. If you shoot hundreds of bullets towards a target, by the laws of probabilities, you will certainly hit, eventually. This means ad hoc management generates results.