This post is an automatic translation from a text written in Slovenian. Translation is generated with use of DeepL Pro tool. Original text is postaed and available here: https://paradim.si/category/slovensko-zdravstvo-2022-23/
The word organisation is used to describe several things. An organisation can be a company, an institution, an association, an institute, or any other form of action by a group of people. An organisation can also be a characteristic of a company, an institute or another form. An organisation is a set of relationships: with colleagues, with a supervisor, with everyone we meet in the workplace. When we talk about changing or improving an organisation, we are talking about whether we want to change these relationships and give them a different face. The key question is again: what kind of organisation should we have in order to be effective and efficient?
The superior-subordinate characteristic
Let us look at one of the central characteristics of relationships: superiority and subordination. Every relationship, or relationship with any other person in the workplace, has four layers: working (exchange of work results), communicative, authoritative and motivational. Let us look at the last three for the purpose of formulating the desired emphases of this paper.
The communication layer of the relationship. When the organisation and the individual relationship have an emphasised hierarchy or superordination, communication is more formal (it contains more rules, e.g. titles may be used), and the communication channel is mainly filled with orders and work instructions and (in the opposite direction) more or less structured reporting on the performance of tasks and the results achieved. When the organisation is less hierarchical, communication is less formal and more relaxed, and the communication channel is predominantly filled with information in the form of explanations and descriptions, questions and feedback on performance, feedback on perceived job performance, etc. In this case, communication is clearly two-way.
The authoritative or power layer in the relationship. Power implies decision-making authority. When superiority is emphasised, decisions are left to or centralised with the superior. When a problem, contingency or other situation is perceived for which there is no clear preconceived course of action, the decision is delegated to the superior. Conversely, with less emphasis on superiority, decision-making is decentralised. Subordinates are thus largely responsible for solving the problems they encounter at work.
Motivational or responsibility layer in the relationship. Emphasised superiority means that responsibility for the work done and the results achieved is concentrated in the supervisor. When one person is held responsible for the actions of another, this naturally leads us into a situation where there is a tendency to exert tighter control over the other person, i.e. a tendency to develop autocratic grips. Otherwise, when responsibility for the work is shared, we are closer to a situation where each person is responsible for his own actions and the results of the work. (In the design of an organisation by management, it is of course necessary that responsibility in this respect is consistent with the willingness or competence to do the work, and also with the powers that the person in question has.)
What kind of relationships do we want at work?
The essence of the role of managers is to work with people and to mobilise human potential, and the role of managers is to shape systems, including the organisation represented in this paper. Relationships play a very important role in keeping people motivated and activated, and must therefore be designed (the term ‘organisational design’ is also used in the organisational field) carefully and deliberately.
All three of these, i.e. the possibility of sharing one’s knowledge and insights with one’s supervisor, the freedom to choose and make one’s own decisions, and also to be held accountable for one’s work, give importance to personal investment, promotion and learning, to observing one’s own work and looking for opportunities to improve. Conversely, when relationships do not allow us to communicate our findings to improve our work or our work environment, or when relationships do not allow us to use our knowledge to improve our decisions, personal advancement and extra activity lose meaning and we lose motivation.
Fin.
There are two main ways in which managers can act. They can be performance builders, who focus predominantly on achieving results, or they can be institution builders, who focus predominantly on the foundations or the overall working conditions that will activate all members of the organisation and enable them to work well, and thus indirectly influence performance. We are losing a lot of potential in systems – talent, desire and motivation as well as insights – because we do not have the right organisation in place. Those with the understanding of the problems do not get to speak, those with the energy to activate and solve the problems do not get to the possibility of action. The design of the organisation and the relationships is certainly one of the so-called foundations that significantly build the ultimate success.
The content of this note is based on the source:
Rozman, R. Analiza in oblikovanje organizacije. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics. Ljubljana, 2010.
The dual designation of leaders (or ways of working) is taken from the source:
Tsui, A. S., Zhang, Z. X., Wang, H., Xin,, K. Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behaviour and organizational culture. The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006), pp. 113-137.
Paradim 