USING
REORGANIZATIONAL EVENTS FOR CAREER ENHANCEMENT
Dr. Joseph L. Spencer,
Dr. Jeffery C. Bauer,
Published:
Proceedings (Presentation) 2005 Conference on Emerging Issues in Business and
Technology
Abstract
Corporate reorganizations are theoretically intended
to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization; however other
intentions abound. Among those ulterior reasons for starting or participating
in a reorganizational event is career enhancement. In fact, ulterior
motivations such as improving one’s career can have significant influence upon
or derail the effectiveness of corporate reorganizations. This research
conducted among 112 managers and executives of telecommunications corporations
found that managers who involve themselves in reorganizational events do so
with ulterior motivations. Such ulterior motivations include a desire for
visibility and promotion. The impact of such ulterior motivations upon the
reorganizational process results in poorer quality organizations following the
corporate change. Impacts such as resultant poorer quality, poorer
communications, reduced efficiency and longer cycle times were directly
correlated with significance to the presence of ulterior motives in managers.
The study also found that career promotion does often follow involvement in reorganizational teams.
Introduction
Corporate reorganizations are theoretically intended
to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization; however other
intentions abound. Among those ulterior reasons for starting or participating
in a reorganizational event is career enhancement. Ulterior motivations such as
improving one’s career can have significant influence upon or derail the
effectiveness of corporate reorganizations.
Corporate reorganizations have been in vogue since
Hammer and Champy (1993) wrote Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Concurrent
with the modern reengineering fad, a great deal of research was conducted on
corporate reorganizations. McKinley & Mone (1998,
198) found organizations have always utilized downsizing and reorganizing as a
tool to control costs and enable corporate change. One critical area which has
lacked exploration is how managers use reorganizational events to enhance their
careers. In fact, participating in designing or implementing a corporate
reorganization to enhance one’s career is an effective tactic commonly utilized
by many managers. The fact that reorganizations are commonplace in corporate
life affords opportunities for a manager to gain exposure to top level
executives in a way which otherwise would not be available to lower level
personnel. This paper examines how managers use reorganizational events to advance
their careers. The paper also examines how ulterior motivations, such as the
desire for visibility and promotion can disadvantage the corporation’s
reorganizational activities and resulting operations.
The data in this study show that using reorganizations
for personal purposes such as to obtain promotions creates adverse consequences
for long-run organizational results. Many researchers have performed studies to
understand the effectiveness of reorganizations and most of these studies
indicated that only a small percentage of reorganizations produce the type of
results desired (Morden, 1997, 240; Keidel, 1994, 12; Mabert & Schmenner, 1997, 45). The American Management Association
(AMA) conducted two studies which found that half of the companies that
downsized experienced constant or negative profits and productivity (Mabert and Schenner, 1997, 83). Cripe (1993, 52) estimated only 40 percent of change agents
produce positive results.
The motivations of managers have dramatic sway over
the end results of reorganizational activities because the motives of those
involved impact how they act and the decisions they make. The starting premise
of this study is that managers have self-interest motivations with regard to
why they become involved in reorganizational activities. Ulterior motives
impact the reorganization process in terms of picking who will design, and
implement, what will be reorganized, what will be the day-to-day activities
involved in the reorganizational process, as well as, what will the ultimate
decisions and implementation methods be.
Finding such impacts from ulterior motivations upon work and work
processes is not unique. The presence of self-interest may have greater impact
upon the success of reorganizational ventures than previously thought. De Vries (1992, 41),
for example, found that while envy was a neglected concept within management
study, it has a major impact upon success in the workplace. De Vries (1992, 41) found that worker envy of other workers
can be destructive and should be dealt with and preventative measures taken to reduce
“envy-inducing behavior.” Likewise, the ulterior motives of managers involved
in reorganizational events will impact the outcomes.
Reorganizations As
A Tool For Promotion.
Managers desiring to be promoted soon realize that
promotion will not occur unless those in positions of promotional power view
the candidate with favor. In order to obtain this favor, managers engage in a
variety of techniques to induce those in power to promote them. These tactics
are aimed at handling three key categories which determine whether one will be
viewed as “promotable.” First, a manager must be visible. That is, he/she must
be known and thought of by those who promote or influence promotions. A person
in obscurity will not be considered by those who impact promotion. People do
not obtain promotion by being anonymous and simply doing their job well.
Second, a manager must have a sound image. Image can include many variables.
These variables include whether the manager is perceived as competent or deemed
likable. Variables include a perception that the manager is able to attain
goals and has appropriate toughness. The variables include the possession of
many other skills and personality traits. Unfortunately each person with power
to promote or influence promotion has a unique list of desirability
traits. Otherwise, obtaining promotion
might be a lot easier. A proper image must be imparted to those who promote:
the individual must be perceived as having these attributes now and that they
will be carried over to successfully impact how the manager would perform in a
higher level role. Third, the candidate must be seen as having successful
performance. Although this aspect can be simply part of the image, often some
record must be expressed or believed, in order for promotion to occur. The
occasion of a reorganization can enable a manager to
increase credentials in all three of these key areas.
Effort such as doing one’s assigned work expertly and
working late seldom pays off in terms of effecting a promotion. Efforts to impress one’s direct supervisor,
again, often fail to result in desired promotion. Therefore, managers try other
tactics which will aid them in obtaining promotion. That is why managers seek
activities which will enhance visibility, image, and performance. Thus, the ulterior motive of wanting
promotion drives managers to become involved in reorganizations.
It can be noted that the advice given to managers in
trade press materials encourages managers to take on activities that promote
exposure, power and promote executive presence (Wakin,
1985, 54; Knowdell, 1998, 0016; Harrington and
Shepard, 1996, 48; Vitiello, 1990, 83). Even advice to governmental managers promotes
the ideas of seeking exposure and obtaining power (Anonymous 1998, 24). Reviewed
journals also advocate power and visibility as career and change agent
enhancement techniques (Schein, 1985, 37; Messmer, 1998, 6; Brousseau,
Driver, Eneroth and Larsson, 1996, 52; Pearse, and Bear, 1998, 26). Messmer’s (1998, 6)
list provides ten techniques which can be career catalysts. He positions six of
the ten best methods of obtaining promotion as techniques to increase
visibility.
The reorganization is an event where upper-level
managers have great interest in the outcomes. Thus, they are attentive to who
is participating in the reorganizational team as well as the process and
recommendations of the team. Such an event therefore is a wonderful opportunity
for managers to improve their chances for promotion. The reorganizational event
may include individual meetings with and presentations to upper levels of
management. It also may include interaction with management from many
functional areas of the company with which the manager would not normally
interact. Thus, the reorganization affords a manager a unique opportunity to
enhance his or her career potential. The reorganization allows the manager a
chance to demonstrate personal traits and capabilities (or at a minimum to
portray these traits) to an upper-level audience.
Since managers see the potential for career
enhancement they enter into reorganizational events with ulterior motives. That
is, they have personal motivations that may induce decisions contrary to what
is best for the organization. Indeed, these ulterior motivations could also result
in the reorganization being a failure. Upper-level managers, understanding the
ulterior motives of the mangers handling the reorganization, may also seek to
influence the results of the team developing the reorganization and thus look
for team members who can be swayed by their beliefs. The interplay of the
desires of upper-level managers with the ulterior motivations of the
participants intersects directly with aiding to influence the visibility and
image of the manager.
The study at hand evaluates the presence and impact of
self-interest as a strong factor in determining why managers become involved in
reorganizational events and how such motivations impact the success or failure
of reorganizational activities. The
study demonstrates correlation between the perceived success or failure of a reorganization and the existence of self-directed motives
versus company-oriented motives. It also demonstrates that a high percentage of
participants were promoted within 18 months of being involved in a reorganizational
event.
The Study
Communication was emailed requesting 262
telecommunications executives and managers to go on-line to fill out a survey
regarding reorganizational activities.
Seventy-four of the emails were not delivered due to being rejected, by
host, as no longer valid (large-scale layoffs during the past several years
explain the inability to contact those addressed). One hundred and twelve
surveys were filled out for a 60 percent response rate. Forty-five percent of
respondents were currently at the vice-presidential level or higher; 25 percent
were directors; 21.4 percent were managers, with the remainder as individual
contributors, supervisors, etc. It is noteworthy that 16 percent of VPs, 29
percent of directors, and 23 percent of managers had been promoted within 18
months of the reorganizational event. On average 23 percent of those who
participated in such an event were promoted within 18 months.
Subjects were requested take the survey with only one
reorganizational event in mind. If they had participated in several events,
they were requested to select one of the events and confine responses to that
reorganizational event. Sixty point eight percent of subjects reported that the
reorganizational event impacted more than 100 persons. And 55 percent of the
reorganizational activities took place through a team size of greater than 15
people. The study was conducted within the telecommunications industry.
Demographically, the study sought to understand the
level of the respondent in their current organization and their level at the
time of the reorganization. Further the respondents provided information
related to their age, gender, firm size and type, the size of the involved
organization. The study found no differences in results based on grouping
according to managerial level, size of organization, gender, age, or the year
the reorganizational effort occurred.
Data was analyzed via SPSS. Planned statistical
analysis included determination of Pearson correlation between such issues as,
the reason for the subject’s involvement in the corporate change or the
subjects perception of the motivation of others involved in the reorganization.
These motivational issues were correlated with organizational outcomes such as
perceived success of the reorganization, increased/decreased costs of
operation, increased/decreased productivity, etc. Tests included paired t-tests
to determine differences between subjects who admitted promotional desires and
when subjects believed such desires existed in other participants. ANOVA views
of perceived organizational success and the presence of desires for promotion
and visibility existing in the subjects and self and as perceived existing in
others. Research questions sought to understand if managers used participation
in corporate reorganizations to enhance their chances for promotion and if
having such motivations correlated to adverse consequences of the
reorganization and the general lack of success of the reorganizational
event.
Through the web questionnaire, subjects reported on
the presence of different types of motivations both for themselves and which
they believed existed in others. They delineated the overall reason the reorganization
was undertaken and how much control the reorganizational team had on the design
or execution. They reported, on a 1-10 Likert scale,
the success of the reorganizational activity. They were prompted to delineate
what outcomes the organization experienced (positive: e.g., reduced cost of
operation - and negative: e.g., less effective communication between work
groups).
Implications
To Career Management
Exposure Helps
It is clear from the study that managers do use
reorganizational events to enhance their careers. The instrument demonstrated
the presence of ulterior motivations; 68.8 percent of subjects acknowledge the
existence of ulterior motivations with respect to themselves. Of these
motivations 24 percent acknowledged they became involved in the effort to
obtain upper-management visibility; another 8 percent expressly became involved
in order to gain a career promotion; 68 percent reported believing, to some
degree, that prior to beginning the activity the event would result in career enhancement.
The instrument also demonstrated that managers
believed that other team members had ulterior motivations which ran contrary to
corporate needs (77.7 percent of respondents believed ulterior motives existed
in their team members). Eight percent
felt others were motivated to control or punish other people or organizations. Forty-seven
point seven percent believed other team members were strongly motivated to
obtain visibility or promotion.
It should be noted that subjects also expressed the presence
of motivations aligned with corporate goals. These motivations include the
desires to: positively impact the organization (25.9 percent), improve company
efficiency (38.4 percent), and being afraid not to be involved (8.9 percent).
Most subjects expressed the presence of both good (corporate oriented) and bad
(self-interest) motivations.
Results indicate that authors such as Messmer (1998, 10) are correct that involvement in
reorganizations can positively impact a manager’s career and facilitate promotion.
A manager with a promising or stagnated career can benefit from offering herself to be involved in reorganizations in order to foster
visibility. However, along with positives, there are associated dangers with
involvement driven by ulterior motivations.
More than Exposure is Needed
Several dimensions need to be
considered regarding the manager, who initiates or participates in leading,
designing, or implementing a reorganization. The first area of concern is the manager who
uses a reorganization to satisfy non-company motives/agendas. Those managers, who undertake
reorganizations, whether advocating or implementing them, are often placed in
positions of exposure to higher levels of management. Questions should be attributed to a
reorganization actually being undertaken for the purpose of enhancing the
career of the manager rather than for the effective running of the organization. Because it is possible for managers to make a
career out of reorganizing each division or unit that they are assigned to, the
frequency of managers undertaking reorganizations in each organization they
manage needs organizational review. The
job of the manager should be to effectively manage her/his organization. Some
managers view their job solely as reorganizing each unit the manager is assigned
to manage. Several key questions need to be studied regarding the manager who
conducts reorganizations. Is the manager making a career of reorganizations
rather than actually managing the organization? If so, the manager could simply
be using reorganizations as a tool to be promoted rather than to enhance
organizational goals. Many companies allow, or actively encourage, managers to
take new job assignments within the company every 18 months in order to enable
the manager to have a broad view of the organization. Brousseau,
et al. (1996, 66) call this the transitory career concept. Do some managers take advantage of this
transitory corporate plan in order to reorganize each unit they are placed in
to gain upper management exposure?
Likewise, are the results of these reorganizations ever tied to the
manager who implemented the reorganization, or does the manager move on too
quickly to be held accountable for the results?
Many corporate changes are simply
restructuring of the workers without changing the substance of the work
performed. Many of these changes are
done in the name of efficiency, but are often reversed or restructured again
several months later. Are these restructuring activities done solely for attaining
power or visibility, and if so what is the impact on the company from managers
who are interested in obtaining power or visibility in this manner? Would companies be better off if upper-management
placed more emphasis on the work being done efficiently rather than focusing on
who reports to whom? Forty-nine percent
of the subjects in the study felt that those involved in their reorganization
were primarily involved to obtain personal power or personal control over the
organization.
The second area of concern surrounds
the capabilities of those managers conducting organizational changes. With corporate managerial procedures such
that managers may only spend 18 to 24 months on any single job (Brousseau, et al., 1996, 52), it is questionable whether
such a manager can effectively organize or implement an effective
reorganization. The abbreviated time on
the job limits the manager’s ability to know what the work tasks are and what
the work-flows are/or and should be.
Perkins and Roa (1990, 1) found that managerial
experience was a key factor in the ability of a manager to be able to make
“soft” decisions (decisions where one cannot actually know all relevant
facts).
It is possible that people who cannot,
or have not managed an organization successfully, can still design an
organization that is to be managed effectively, but is this the norm? Some companies have introduced process
engineers into their companies whose first job with the company is process
engineering. Many of these people are
assigned to these tasks as their first job out of college. Can such a novice
effectively create a workable process and reengineer a micro-level organization
or processes when the new process engineer does not (and cannot in a short
period of time) understand the whole process?
Correlations between management ability, measured by time as a manager
without reorganizing, and success of the reorganization, measured by how long
till the reorganized structure is reorganized again, would be useful. This type of research would aid
organizational theorists in recommending policies regarding how long managers
should stay on a job prior to changing jobs and starting reorganizational
efforts. Studies of this nature may
properly frame the question of “managers as change agents” and help to
determine the promotability of managers.
HR and Executive Responsibilities in
Career Management
Human resource professionals and
executive level managers need to ensure that career advancement does not occur
because an individual was visible due to reorganizing part of the company,
without determining that the reorganization was done properly and actually
benefited the company. Cripe’s (1993, 52) estimate that at least 40 percent of
change agents fail to provide positive results from reorganization efforts
should lead to the establishment of controls. A key to success here is knowing the real reason each reorganization is being
conducted. Controls need to be developed
by human resource personnel and upper-management to ensure the quality of those
promoted is based on more than image but that the image is backed up by
managerial competence.
Although, a career path based on
reorganizing can result in a rapid promotion path, managers must ask the
question, “Are they are learning the skills they will need when they reach
higher levels of management? HR and upper-managers must take partial
responsibility to ensure that those promoted are having the type of experiences
which will build long-term managerial excellence. It is possible for upper-management
to only see the events which are visible, such as a
reorganization. But promotions must be based not only on such events but
also on the ability to manage and produce results on a normal day to day basis,
not simply during times of reorganization.
It is imperative for the manager
to take individual responsibility to develop needed upper-level skills and capabilities.
Likewise, upper-level management and HR professionals should integrate systems
to aid managerial development and institute promotional programs which better ensure
the competency of those promoted, so that they will succeed in upper levels of
management. Such a system would be much better than an over-reliance on
personal feeling and judgments based on limited exposure obtained during a short
corporate reorganizational assignment. With such a system the corporation has
more validity to assume upper-level success in those it promotes. The
reorganizational effort does enable upper-level management to see some of the
skills which a lower-level manager possesses but normally this exposure is not enough
to judge the person’s capabilities when the results of the effort as yet are
not fully evaluated. The common expression, “the proof is in the pudding,”
should be kept in mind and leadership requires an evaluation of sustained results.
Implications
to Organizational Effectiveness
We find adverse consequences to the organization
deriving from reorganizational participants desires
to be promoted. Subjects related their beliefs regarding the effectiveness of
the reorganization with which they were involved. Seventy-five percent of
subjects believed that ulterior motivations did negatively impact
reorganizational outcomes. These success measures and results of the
reorganization show significant bi-variate correlation (Pearson) as related to
the presence of desires to be promoted. In general, the presence of such motivations
resulted in reduced organizational effectiveness and reduced organizational
efficiency.
The key question for an organization is how much
negative impact from reorganizational activities can be attributed to such
motivations of reorganizational participants.
This study provides insight into this question. Strong correlation, surprisingly, was not
generally found between the presence of promotional motives in self and
negative organizational results.
However, very strong correlation (p=.005, r=.24) was found in subject
belief in the presence of promotional motives in other team members and self-reported
negative organizational outcomes.
Correlations
include:
·
The existence of
power-seeking motives in team members and resultant higher cost of operation
(p=.01, r=.23) and longer product cycle time (p=.05, r.21)
·
Team member
ulterior motives of seeking to gain organizational control and the absence of
any positive outcome of the reorganization (p=.05, r=.31).
·
Reduced quality
and desires of team members (p=.05, r=.3) or desire for self to be promoted (p=.01,
r=.19).
·
Desires of team
members to be promoted and a wish that different decisions had been made (p=.01,
r=.43)
To understand the danger to the company of managers
entering reorganizational events with a desire to be promoted, consider what
related activities such motives bring with them. Managers seeking image and
visibility are desirous to present an image which pleases upper management.
Thus, in their presentations, decisions, activities and goals they look to
those whom they seek to please for guidance regarding what conduct and
decisions are preferable. Objectivity is replaced with decisions oriented to
please. Facts and organizational needs can easily be set aside if relating
these facts would offend the predetermined views of someone in upper-management
and thus harm the potential for a promotion.
Analysis demonstrated that 23 percent of subjects were
promoted within 18 months of the change effort, and 9.8 percent who were not
promoted were displeased that promotion had not occurred. Seventy-eight point
six percent post-reorganization believed involvement had enhanced their career.
Six point three percent of subjects list their sole motivation for
participation as the desire to be promoted. The manager who is motivated to
institute or work on a reorganization in the hope of
being promoted is likely to have her or his decision-making affected by this
motivation. Analysis found that the more management influenced decisions, the
more subjects wished they had made different decisions (p=.01, r=.43) and the
more upper management was involved, the worse the reorganization was rated
successful (p=.01, r=.25).
Christensen’s (1997, 315) case study showed how
ulterior motives hindered a reorganization of Danish government. The current
study extends beyond simply blocking a reorganization
and studies the beliefs of the subjects in greater detail. The current study
provides focus on a greater range of ulterior motives and organizational
results. The findings of Vrendenburgh & Brender (1998, 1337) in their model of power abuse also
affirm the findings of this study in that managers will abuse power and
self-interest to the disadvantage of the organization. Likewise, the studies of
Collins (1995,57) and Lumsdun
(1995, 24) demonstrate how self-interest and group-interest diverged in
employee involvement programs and in executive management teams. The current study
goes beyond these works however in reviewing the impact of individuals and the
importance of individual motivations rather than that of teams.
Clouding Effect on Judgment
The impact of ulterior motivations in reorganizational
teams is far-reaching and has a clouding effect on the proper decisions that
need to be made for the company. If one
is seeking promotion, or favorable visibility, the manager’s judgment can be
clouded by a tendency to do what pleases or is expected to please those who may
be watching, rather than what is the best decision for the company. For
example, if the manager believes that upper management expects a downsizing,
the manager is unlikely to look at the situation and determine that a
downsizing is likely to harm organizational effectiveness. Outcomes are
narrowed and the possibility of the best results is hindered by what managers
perceive are the views of those they wish to please.
Where subjects believed promotion was a possible
outcome, the more likely they were to be influenced by upper-management (p=.05,
r=.33) and the desire after the reorganization to have made different decisions
(p=.01, r=.24). Also, the more likely the subject believed he or she would be
promoted, the more likely layoffs were a result of the reorganization and the
more likely subject to view those layoffs as a negative result, rather than a
positive outcome, of the organizational change.
Where the subjects did not believe promotional motives
were present in team members, the subjects felt decisions made were the proper
decisions (p=.01, r=.26). The absence of ulterior motives is strongly related
to views that the reorganization was successful (p=.01, r=.26) and that the
company was more efficient following the reorganization (p=.01, r=.19). Lack of
promotional motives was also correlated to beliefs that there were no problems
of lower quality following the reorganization (p=.05, r=.3) and that there were
no negative results associated with the reorganization (p=.05, r=.27).
In the study, subjects asserted that when
upper-management (in some fashion) made their desires known, the decisions made
were more likely to have negative consequences and subjects were more likely to
wish other decisions had been made. The more involved or the more pressure
exerted by upper-management, the less subjects were satisfied with reorganizational results. Negative consequences were
defined for the survey in terms of resultant effects such as, reduced quality,
higher operating costs, less efficient processes, worsened internal
communications, etc.
In general, these managers who have promotional
ulterior motives and allow these motives to warp decisions, discussions, and
activities, will regret the resultant negative organizational impacts. Thus,
personal control and integrity must lead them to do what is right (in the best
interest of the organization) rather than be overly influenced by the potential
benefit in their career. It is advisable for managers for the benefit of their
careers to actively to participate in activities such as reorganizational
events. Participation must be balanced in the minds of participations in terms
of guarding their integrity so that they do what is best for the company and do
not regret actions and decisions. Managers also must guard themselves in terms
of career expectations. Participation can aid a career and can aid in obtaining
promotion, but it is not a panacea and it is advisable to ensure that managers
do not build expectations to the point that they are resentful or disappointed
that they were not promoted following participation.
Minimizing Impacts
Can methods be employed to minimize the presence or
impact of ulterior motives? While further research needs to be employed to
determine if and what these methods might be, the following is presented both
to spur further research and to offer a potential guide to improve results of
reorganizations. The directional areas of control involve: eliminating or
controlling the visibility/promotion problem, reducing/hindering upper-management
involvement, and controlling excessive and obvious ulterior motivations.
Promotions based mainly upon participation are not
advisable. Thus, up front expectations should be provided to participants so
that they understand that although important, their careers and promotions are
not to be determined by participation or based upon the decisions made by the
team. Thus, if the team does not downsize the careers of participants are not
affected, or if downsizing must be a result, make that clear. Discussions
should ensure that managers know their career path and know that their involvement
in this team is career-neutral. Or, if career-impacting, they must understand
that the criteria for promotion are based on their decision prowess not their
kowtowing to upper-management whims. In general, the team needs to have a
discussion from upper-management that they are to determine the best course of
action for the company, not some preconceived notion of some executive manager.
Managers need at the onset, and possibly during the event, to have discussions
about ensuring that they make the right decisions for the company as a whole,
not for themselves, one particular manager, or one particular department. To
this extent, it is important for upper-level managers to ensure that those on
the team have personal integrity and will do what is right for the company.
Those executives (and
upper-level managers) who sponsor or are impacted by the reorganizational team
need to be objective or removed from the decision-making process. They should
also have rules as to how and when review and input to the team are to be made.
This will aid in the elimination of the upper-management input problem. It can
also aid in what Miner (1978, 739) alludes to as the abuse of power being detrimental
to corporate efficiency. The tie between the visibility and upper-management
input problems are inextricably tied.
Ulterior motivation problems are often hard to
determine and control. One method could be to include an ombudsman in the
reorganizational team. This person, who is actually external to the reorganization’s
stakeholders, has the duty of spotting such motivations and quietly reviewing
with the person the nature of the observation. This person may or may not be
obligated to report to the executive overseeing the reorganizational team.
Likewise, this ombudsman may or may not have removal power to remove a person
from the team. This ombudsman may or may not serve the team as a facilitator.
Other methods of control could include denying input
from those on the team who have unique interest in the design over some
particular aspect of the endeavor. In another vein, research needs to be
conducted to compare the results of a design from an internal group versus the
recommendations of an outside agency, such as a group of consultants. This
would aid in understanding the impact of having those without stake in the new
structure design the structure.
Conclusion
For a manager to ignore opportunities to gain visibility
could be career limiting and such opportunities should be sought by managers to
improve chances for promotion. However, managers must assume total
responsibility for their careers and must personally assure that they are
developing their managerial abilities in all respects. Self-evaluation is
critical and taking jobs which enhance and develop skills and abilities is as
crucial to becoming an effective manager as is visibility and image control.
Thus, a manager must use all tools available to become excellent at their work.
Reorganizational events are one of those tools that should be utilized by
managers in personal and career development. It is also important for
upper-level management and HR professionals to aid in the proper development of
managerial skills for employee development.
Managing the careers of managers and ensuring company
efficiency is a balancing act. Awareness that personal motivations can
negatively impact efficiency in reorganizational activities is critical for
executives to ensure the best results are obtained. Overall, it is incumbent
upon executive management to ensure that the effectiveness and efficiency of
the organization is not compromised by managers who have ulterior motivations.
Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational
change: denial, inaction and repression. Journal
of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917-931.
Anonymous (1998). You can’t float to the top. Government Executive, 33(6), 24.
Bonvillian, G. (1997). Managing the messages
of change: lessons from the field, Industrial
Management. 39 (1), 20-25.
Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Eneroth, K. and Larsson, R. (1996). Career pandemonium: realigning organizations and
individuals.
Christensen, J. (1997). Structure
and organization. Sage Public Administration Abstracts, 24(3) 315-7.
Collins, D. (1995). Self-interests and group-interests
in employee involvement programs: a case study. Journal of Labor Research,
16(1), 57-80.
Cripe, E. (1993). How to get top-notch
change agents. Training
& Development. 47(12), 52-58.
De Vries,
M. (1992). The motivating role of
envy: a forgotten factor in management. Administration
& Society, 24(1), 41-61.
Ebadan, G. and Winstanley, D.(1997). Downsizing, delayering and careers -- the
survivor’s perspective. Human Resource
Management Journal, 7(1), 79-91.
Evans, M., Gunz,
H. and Jallard, M. (1997). Implications of organizational downsizing
for managerial careers. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(4), 359-371.
Gilmore, T., Shea,
G. and Useem, M. (1997). Side effects of corporate cultural
transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
33(2), 174-189.
Kessler, R. C., Turner, J. B. and House, J. S. (1989). Unemployment,
reemployment, and emotional functioning in a community sample. American
Sociological Review, 54(4), 648-657.
Hammer, M. & Champy, J.
(1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto
for business revolution, Harper Business, NY.
Harrington, L. and Shepard, M. (1996). Career strategies for turbulent
times. Internal Auditor,
53(3), 48-52.
Howard, J. & Frink,
D. (1996). The effects of
organizational restructure on employee satisfaction. Group
and Organizational Management, 21(3), 278-304.
Keidel, R.,
Knowdell, R. (1998). The 10 new rules for
strategizing your career. Futurist, 32(5), 0016-0033.
Lumsdun, K. (1995). Why executive teams fail and what to do. Hospitals
& Health Networks, 69(15), 24-32.
Mabert, V. & Schmenner,
R. (1997). Assessing
the roller coaster of downsizing. Business
Horizons, 40(4), 45-53.
McKinley,W. & Mone, M. (1998). Some ideological foundations of organizational downsizings. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(3), 198-213.
Messmer, M. (1998). Top ten career catalyst. TMA Journal, 18(3),
6-10.
Mishra, K., Spreitzer,
G. and Msihra, A. (1998). Preserving employee morale during
downsizing. Sloan Management
Review, 39(2), 83-95.
Miner, J. (1978). Twenty years
of research on role motivation theory of managerial effectiveness. Personal
Psychology 31, 739-760.
Morden, T. (1997). A strategic evaluation of
re-engineering, restructuring, delayering and downsizing
policies as flawed paradigm. Management Decision, 35(3-4),
240.
Nutt, P. and Backoff, R. (1997). Facilitating transformational
change. Journal of Applied
Behavior, 33(4), 490-508.
Pearse, R. and Bear, M. (1998) Career
success in different corporate cultures. Compensations & Benefits Management, 14(1), 26-35.
Perkins, S. and Rao,
R. (1990). The
role of experience in information use and decision making by marketing
managers. Journal of Marketing
Research, 27(1), 1-10.
Sanchez, R. & Henne, A. (1997).
Managing for an uncertain future: a systems view of strategic
organizational change. International Studies of Management & Organization, 270(2). 21-42.
Sastry, M. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated
organizational change. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42(2), 237-275.
Schein, V. (1985). Organizational Realities: the politics of change. Training & Development Journal,
39(2), 37-41.
Viatiello, J. (1990). Creating your own
promotion. Computerworld,
24(33), 83.
Vredenburgh, D. & Brender,
Y. (1998). The
hierarchical abuse of power in work organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 17(12),1337-1347.
Wakin, E. (1985).Career strategies: making the right moves.
Today’s Office,
19(11), 54-58.
War, P. & Jackson, P. (1987). Adapting to the unemployment role:
a longitudinal investigation. Social Science and Medicine. 25. 1219-1224.
War, P.,
Wolfram-Cox, J. (1997) Effects of organizational change on
interpersonal relationships: the interplay of identities and emotions in a
manufacturing environment,
Appendix
Survey Instrument
Questionnaire on Reorganizational
Experience
The purpose of this
questionnaire is to collect data on the experiences of managers relating to
their participation in reorganizational teams. If you have participated on several teams,
please answer the questions with one experience in mind. Please also pick the reorganizational effort that had the broadest scope.
Information shared in this survey is viewed as confidential and will only be
used in conjunction with the research on this topic.
What is your current level in
your corporation? (Please mark the closest description to your level)
Supervisor Manager
Individual
Contributor Professional
Level
Director Vice
President
Senior
Executive
At what level in your
corporation were you at the time of the reorganization? (Please mark the
closest description to your level)
Supervisor Manager
Individual
Contributor Professional
Level
Director Vice
President
Senior
Executive
Are you a Male or Female? Male Female
Current Age <25 26 –35 36-50 >50
What year did the
reorganization occur? 19__ 20__
How many people are in your company
0-50 51-500
500-5000 >5000
Is your company best
described as:
A
Telecom service provider A
Telecom equipment vendor
A
Telecom software vendor A
Telecom support company
Other
___________________________________
How many people were involved
in the reorganizational design or implementation team
1 2-7 8-15 16-25 >25
What was the purpose of the reorganizational effort? (Pick closest explanation)
To
develop more efficient processes
Improved communications between work processes
To raise employee morale
To improved the quality or cost of a product or the
company
To
enable someone at a higher level the ability to gain power over other
organization(s)
Reengineering
– redesigning what or how and work is done
Structural
redesign – divestiture, acquisition, elimination of a product line, etc
To
change organizational reporting structures
To
change the culture – that is to change the attitudes and behaviors of employees
Other
_________________________________________________
How many people were affected
(role, work or reporting structure may have changed, or were displaced, etc.)
by the reorganizational effort? 1-10 11-25 26-100 >100
How did you come to
participate in the reorganizational exercise? (pick one)
Volunteered
(Requested to be on the team)
Primary
Driver to establish the reorganizational team
Boss
placed me on reorganizational team without asking my willingness
Boss
placed me on reorganizational team after requesting
my support
Boss
placed me on reorganizational team denoting it would
be good for my career
Randomly
selected to be on the team
Placed
on team due to my technical knowledge, knowledge of the systems, organization
or processes
Other
_________________________________________________
What were the most important
reasons you agreed to be on the reorganizational
team? Check one on the primary motivation and one on the secondary motivation
Primary Motive Secondary Motive
To attain visibility
among upper management
Wanted
to impact the organization
Wanted
to help the company run more efficiently
Wanted
to attain more power and influence within the company
To
enhance my career
Afraid
of what would happen if I were not involved
To
control or gain more control regarding the direction of the organization
To
gain control or influence over how other departments were operated
Other
_________________________________________________
=During the reorganizational process did you believe that other members
of the reorganizational team had motivations that
were other than the efficiency and effectiveness of the company?
If
yes, The motivations you believe were present in other
team members included (check all that apply)
The
desire to gain power over others
The
desire to be promoted
The
desire to obtain visibility among upper management
The
desire to control or punish another person or department
Other
_________________________________________________
When you started into the
reorganization process did you believe that participating in the reorganizational effort would enhance your career? Scale of
1-10 (1 not very likely 10 very likely)
Following the reorganizational exercise, were you promoted within the
following 18 months?
If
no - Was your lack of promotion disappointing?
If
yes - How much do you feel the exposure to upper management you received from
participating on the reorganizational team aided your
promote-ability? (10 being very influential)
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8
9 10
On a scale of 1-10, how
successful was the reorganization? (That is did the reorganization help the
company?) (10 being highly successful)
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10
What were the positive results of the reorganization?
(Check all that apply)
More efficient processes Reduced cost of production
Less time to complete work Higher employee morale
Improved communications between work
processes
Improved product quality None
Other _________________________________________________
What were the negative results? (Check all that
apply)
Layoffs Lower employee morale
Resentment
among those on the reorganizational team
Less
efficient processes Higher cost of providing service
Worsened
internal communication Worse
product quality
None
Other
_________________________________________________
To what degree do you believe
that members of the team in general participated in a manner that was
self-serving versus solely being interested in true company goals? (10 being other team members were very
interested in their own interests verses solely company interests)
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10
On a scale of 1-10, how
influential in the outcome were the non-company motivations of your fellow reorganizational team participants? ? (10 being highly influential)
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10
Was the re-organizational
effort handled as a team effort or as a directed upper management effort? (Pick the one that best represents the
situation)
Team had complete control over decisions
Team had partial control over decisions
Upper management was highly controlling with regard
to final decisions
Upper
management was very involved in every stage of the reorganizational
design
Upper
Management set the goals and the team had control over details.
To what degree do you
perceive that possible opportunities for promotion related to your exposure to
upper management exposure influenced the decisions you made in the reorganizational team’s effort? ? (10 being highly influential)
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10
What is the degree to which
the views of upper management influenced the teams’ recommendations regarding
the reorganization? (10 being highly influential)
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10
If you had it to do over
again to what degree would you liked the team to have
made different decisions during the reorganizational
effort? (10 being you would have liked
the team to make different decisions)
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
9 10