Functional Specialism Vs Generalist Management: The Power Shift.

Functional Specialism vs Generalist Management: The Power Shift.

Obawemimo Aina - January 11, 2017


OBAWEMIMO AINA

1

Table of Contents 1.0

Introduction

3

2.0

Conflict and Resistance to Change

5

2.1

Functional Conflict

5

2.2

Dysfunctional Conflict

6

2.3

Leadership Style and Negotiation

6

3.0

Diversifying

7

4.0

Conclusion

8

Bibliography

9-10

OBAWEMIMO AINA

2

1.0 Introduction Modern business needs demands employees to be engaged in multiple roles within their job capacity (Murray, 2015) then encouraged and permitted to achieve (Mullins, 2005). The process involves the engagement of employees in various roles within the organisation. A top-down change, strategic approach aimed at impacting organisations performance effectiveness in a comprehensive way (Schermerhorn, 2002). The concept is aimed at improving organisational efficiency, and is ‘an ability to respond to environmental change’ (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008); the increased need for such reorganisation is the resultant effect of the increasing rate of change (Bower & Walton Jnr, 1973). Cloke and Goldsmith (2002) posits that the era of conventional management practice is fading away and organisations that fail to share power and responsibility with employees will be deserted.

‘Multitasking’ is ever so important in present times as organisations constantly seek to be leaner and more agile (Heerwagen, 2016). Thus retaining the current organisation shape of employees focusing on their specific domains (specialist) as against employees engaging in cross functional boundaries (generalist) will lead to organisational inefficiency (Ferry, 2012).

According to Mansharamani (2012 ), ‘…increased specialism is limiting agility, not enhancing it’. He further highlighted one of the limitations of a functional specialist as; applying conventional solutions to apparent events, because they are used to functioning in a unitary praxis, contrary to the generalist who can function adequately across boundaries and proffer solutions to ambiguous situations with unclear specifications.

To further buttress the downside of the specialist, in a study covering over 20 years data, (Tetlock, 2005) asserted that within a specialist domain, possessing a broad horizon and good judgement is more advantageous at forecasting and decision making than expert knowledge and experience, referring to his research data which revealed that ‘experts are less accurate predictors than non-experts’.

Nevertheless, the reorientation process will not go without receiving some resistance from the workforce, as reorganisation is often feared and existing conditions would be affected, posing a threat to certain groups and disrupt norms within the organisation (Kotter, 2008).

Therefore it is important to systematically assess possible entities that would resist the change initiative before commencing the process.

While seeking the successful implementation of this change policy, Kotter (1996) in his model recommends eight levels in actualising the process. The steps are represented in the figure1 below.

OBAWEMIMO AINA

3

STEP1: INCREASE URGENCY STEP2: BUILD GUIDING TEAM STEP3: DEVELOP THE VISION STEP4: COMMUNICATE BUY-IN STEP5: EMPOWER ACTION STEP6: CREATE SHORT TERM WINS STEP7: DON’T LET UP STEP8: MAKE CHANGE STICK

Figure 1. Kotter’s Model of Change. Source: Kotter 1996.

Whilst accepting that these steps are necessary, managing the transition phase (figure 2) from the old to the new is critical to management, as the phase determines if change would be smooth or one that risks being sabotaged and cripple the change effort.

OLD WAYS

TRANSITION (RESISTANCE AND CONFLICT)

NEW WAYS

Figure 2. Transition phase. Source: www.conflictango.com

OBAWEMIMO AINA

4

2.0 CONFLICT AND RESISTANCE TO CHNAGE Esquivel and Kleiner (1997, quoted in Henry, 2009, p.1) posits on the general assumption that disagreement over interests or ideas can be regarded as conflict. And in relation to organisations, conflicts are discords that arise when groups within an organisation have different interest, goals and objectives. Conflict is inherent to organisations as the different goals of stakeholders differ i.e. managers and staff(Jones et al, 2000), and the approach to it has evolved over the years (see figure 3 below).

CONFLICT

19TH CENTURY

20TH CENTURY

21ST CENTURY

Disruptive and To be avoided.

Disruptive but tolerated and can be settled through collective bargaining

A normal part of life.

Figure 3. Evolution of Conflict.

Source: Bouchikhi and Kimberly.

Conforming to the reorganisation plans that affect employees role perception will seem like a loss against the usual trend of sticking with their specialist role and thus would be met with stiff resistance.

Resistance is the strategy applied by employees in order to maintain existing circumstances when their parochial self-interest is threatened (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). Resistance can be to confront and challenge constituted authority or to engage in meaningful dialogue to achieve their aim, and failure to agree would lead to conflict. Conflict is a clash over issues of perceived importance (Schermerhorn, 2002). The ensuing conflict can either be a functional conflict or dysfunctional conflict.

2.1 Functional Conflict Arises when employees work towards achieving organisational goals and the results benefits both the organisation and individuals involved. This type of conflict will raise opportunities for creative solutions capable of improving effectiveness. Employees attempting to surpass each other in the aim of achieving organisational objectives is positive. For instance, two top engineers competing to reduce the size of components within a product while retaining its effectiveness to win a prize can be viewed as healthy rivalry and capable of boosting organisational productivity. However, setting same scenario between the best and least capable engineer will result in conflict due to frustration.

OBAWEMIMO AINA

5

2.2 Dysfunctional Conflict A conflict that works to the disadvantage of either an individual or organisation. A noticeable feature is the disturbance of cohesion within groups and diversion of energy to less productive activities, thus negating the possibility of achieving organisational goals. The continued disagreement of overlapping of roles can cause employees to dessert the organisation if the outcome does not favour them.

2.3 Leadership Style and Negotiation In determining the appropriate leadership style to adopt while negotiating with employees, it is imperative to understand the consequences based on assertiveness and cooperation. See figure 4 below showing Thomas and Kilmann conflict resolution grid.

A S S E R T I V E N E S S

HIGH COLLABORATING

COMPETING

COMPROMISING

AVOIDING

ACCOMMODATING

LOW

HIGH COOPERATION

Figure 4. Thomas and Kilmann conflict resolution grid. Source: Thomas-Kilmann, 1974.

The model contains two key indices; assertiveness and cooperation. Assertiveness being the motivation of the group to achieve their objective of reverting back to the status quo, while cooperation measures the willingness of management to bend to the wishes of the group.

The five identified styles - collaborating, competing, avoiding, compromising and accommodating are capable of conflict resolution depending on the circumstances surrounding it. However in this case, where majority of the employees are willing to leave the organisation, the appropriate style would be collaborating. Collaborating is high on

OBAWEMIMO AINA

6

assertiveness and cooperation and provides a win-win situation for both parties and bring about behavioural change in employees.

They would need to creatively seek ways to achieve their goals jointly, without affecting organisational productivity. As effective as this approach is, it requires sincerity of purpose from all parties involved.

3.0 DIVERSIFYING It is now vital for the introduction and management of change to organisations as a means of developing competitive advantage (D’Ortenzio, 2012). The diversification of our operations into other relevant areas i.e, product development - tidal turbines, and wave power converters; and transmission will help employee growth through internal transfer of knowledge, initiate positive competition and ultimately retain our leading status and increase our market share.

With the robust nature of our manpower, venturing into this is within our capacity and will not overly increase our operational budget. Also, it is important to note that our advanced understanding of;

• product purpose.

• production composition.

• customer quality expectations.

• well established quality tolerance levels.

Being designers, this gives us competitive advantage over our competitors.

It is important to note that while a shift from traditional management systems to an all inclusive management structure, will not in itself lead to organisational efficiency, but the combination of the right organisational culture and climate, employee commitment, organisational conflict management, management of change and management development (Mullins, 2005).

OBAWEMIMO AINA

7

4.0 CONCLUSION Whilst conflict is inherent in organisations, a good understanding of how to positively influence individuals and groups while initiating a change process is vital for managers (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008). The existence of several conflict management systems are eective in most cases, however it is logical to take pre-emptive steps before initiating a change process. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008), identified the following as important actions to forestall resistance and prevent conflict; Education and communication: they are eďŹƒcient ways to surmount resistance to change, as communication brings to life the idea being planned. Participation and involvement: involving potential resistors in the change design and implementation process can help forestall the process before hand.

OBAWEMIMO AINA

8

OBAWEMIMO AINA

9

Bibliography BOULGARIDES, J.D. and COHEN, W.A. (2001) ‘LEADERSHIP STYLE VS. LEADERSHI P TACTICS’, The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 6.

Bower, M. and Walton, Jnr, C.L. (1973) ‘Gearing a Business to the Future, in Challenge to Leadership’, The Conference Board, .

Cloke, K. and Goldsmith, J. (2002) The End of Management: and the Rise of Organisational Democracy. .

Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999) ‘Challenging “resistance to change”’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), pp. 25–41. doi: 10.1177/0021886399351003.

Ferry, K. (2012) Generalist managers make a comeback. Available at: http:// www.kornferry.com/institute/516-generalist-managers-make-a-comeback (Accessed: 13 January 2017).

Heerwagen, J. (2005) The changing nature of organizations, work, and workplace. Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/changing-nature-organizations-work-and-workplace (Accessed: 10 January 2017).

Henry, O. (2009) ‘Organizational Conflict and its Effects on Organizational Performance’, Research Journal of Business Management, 3.

KOTTER, J. (1996) ‘Leading change. John P. Kotter, 1996, Harvard business school press, Boston, MA,. 187 pages; $24.95’, Competitive Intelligence Review, (2), pp. 96–97.

KOTTER, J. (2008) ‘A SENSE OF URGENCY’, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW PRESS, .

KOTTER, J. and SCHLESINGER, L. (2008) ‘CHOOSING STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE’, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, .

Mullins, L.J. (2005) Management and Organisational behaviour. 7th edn. Harlow, England: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Multitasking in Organisations: Productivity impacts and incentivisation to multitask (2015) Available at: http://www.deliveringbetter.com/blogs/multitasking-in-organisations-productivityimpacts-and-incentivisation-to-multitask (Accessed: 10 January 2017). ’ortenzio, Carlo D (2012) UNDERSTANDING CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES: A CASE STUDY. Available at: http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/ file/81c02a90-6a15-91ae-c7a2-ff44c96d60b2/1/full_text.pdf (Accessed: 11 January 2017).

Schermerhorn, J.R. (2002) Management. 7th edn. New York, NY: Wiley, John & Sons.

Tetlock, P.E. (2005) Expert political judgment: How good is it ? How can we know ? United States: Princeton University Press.

THOMAS, K. and KILMANN, R. (1974) ‘Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument’, .

OBAWEMIMO AINA

10

(No Date) Available at: http://www.conflicttango.com/managing-conflicts-during-organizationalchange/ (Accessed: 13 January 2017).

OBAWEMIMO AINA

11