Interviews Getting the Interviews Lined

¶ … Interviews

Getting the interviews lined up was more frustrating and time consuming than I first imagined.

It was hard to find the people who would agree to be interviewed and then it took several calls and long time in between until they finally agreed to see me. Even then, I had to change appointments various times, since they repeatedly canceled at short notice scheduling me in for another, only to cancel that, and so the pattern repeated.

The first interviewee was the Strategic Planning Analyst . She possessed an MBA, was 28 years old, and had tenure in the organization for 4 years. It may have been the fact too that she was a female -- I am thinking now -- that prompted her to be more hard-working than the male and to be more reflective in her response. The first factor may be due to the fact that she has to be competitive in a man's world. The second factor may epitomize her gender.

The second interviewer was the Head of payment section . He had a Master Degree in quality, was employed by the organization for 7 years, was 35 years old, and was male.

The first interview lasted for one and half hours. The woman seemed willing and interested. The second interview was constrained and lasted only 40 minutes. The man seemed reluctant, recalcitrant, and closed. I notice that he was employed for longer in the organization than she had been. He may be under-motivated and in the throes of burnout. He is also older than the woman, but that does not necessarily count.

Part II Comparison of organizations

Structure.

The first has its structure clearly delineated, as per this chart.

Organization chart as below chart:

It is a top-down organization with upper level management separated from employees. This obstructs clear communication. There also seems to be distinction in employee status with each having their own position. There are 6 divisions under the overall manager, and the overall manger himself is helped by 3 offices.

The second interviewee only cursorily describes the structure of his organization. There is a strategic planning sector headed by the general manager. The leadership is described as good. He thinks they have sufficient employees but the skills and experience of th employees are deficient. The impression that we receive is that the upper and middle management are separated from the rank and file employees and that again motivation and communication is poor and does not flow through the organization.

Strategic plan development

Since the strategic plan department of the first interviewer is separated from management, communication is detached, and management are not always aware of the plans negatively affecting management commitment and support. The state of decision making is extremely low; the employees need to receive technical training, but their team spirit is "excellent."

In contradistinction, the other interviewer could not provide me with information regarding the state of the strategic plan in his organization. His organization used consultants which he thought were unnecessary. He considered the services of the internal experts to be sufficient.

Participation in strategic planning

First interviewee rated top management disinterested. Middle management was more interested but failed to communicate results to top echelon, whereas the employees (rank -- and file) were motivated but had no idea what they were doing. As regards herself, she felt that all her employees were involved and that she had encouraged each of the department heads under her supervision to help her. She had also organized a strategic retreat each year to review progress. Political maneuvering and disinterest from top managers, inevitably interfered with strategic development.

As regards interviewee 2, his answer was the reverse. Whilst top and middle management actively participated in strategic development, the employees seemed largely under motivated and disinterested. He had "no idea" why this was the case.

Political behavior in strategic planning

Political behavior can be defined as "intentional action(s) of influence taken by people in order to enhance or protect their own interests or these of the organization." Examples of these actions are the use of power, coalition formation, agenda control, negotiation or bargaining, manipulation and control of crucial information.

Interviewee 1 believed that political behavior was overt in her organization with some managers actively exploiting employees and encouraging them to take certain stance that would promote their agenda and resist change.

This behavior was egoistic, done out of self-interest rather than for the benefit of the organization and often out of power struggles between one division and the other.

Interviewee II had no idea whether political behavior was manifested in his organization. Perhaps he did not wish to provide his opinion on that topic.

Strategic plan implementation

Interviewee 1 explained that they followed the 4 phases of the Balance scorecard methodology in implementing their strategic plan. These included developing strategy, mapping, cascading and alignment, and reviewing and adopting. The organization initially used external consultations to help them with their strategic development but last year turned to internal experts, who they were better able to communicate with and who were better informed about municipality issues.

The employees participate in strategic planning workshops. The strategic plan committee is periodically updated and features representatives from various departments. However gap between higher echelon and strategic committee effects outcome as does the poor leadership and lack of incentives. Resources need to be utilized more and technical skills need to be improved.

According to interviewee 2, his organization implements the strategic plan by allocating budgetary resources and by periodically reviewing its progress. Strategy is negatively impacted by lack of transparency and communication as well as by incentives to encourage employee motivation. Leadership also needs to be more strongly committed, but the HR capabilities seem to be adequate as does the resources.

Strategic plan assessment and outcomes

Interviewee 1 is satisfied with the assessment and outcome of her strategic plan particularly since she covered all criteria of the approved methodology score card. The strategic plan unit is essential to the organization for various reasons, and its impact has a positive effect on the organization as a whole. As example, she related about the availability of services to the Abu Dubai government portal, the ability to up practice throughout the organization, and to create multi-channels for customer service.

Interviewee 2, on the other hand thought that the strategic department could be effectively eliminated to the benefit of the organization since each division would be compelled to work independently and structure their own plans. He saw strategic planning as helping the organization and employees in various ways, but that it lacked transparency and abstained from involving all employees

Learning/future

Interviewee 1 saw her prime 3 problems as consisting of; lack of communication from upper management, lack of leadership commitment, and lack of financial support. Her corrections would be to appoint right people in certain positions, create more transparency in presenting plans to upper management, and increase the awareness of strategic planning via certain medium.

Interviewee 2 rated the key problem of strategic management division as being lack of communication with other sectors. His wish was that all employees would be involved in participation and planning and that top management would be supportive of their efforts.

III. Comparison of answers between the two interviewees.

The woman adequately describes the structure of her organization detailing gap between top management and lower workers talking about impasse of communication as a result. To her the problems in Strategic plan development comes from lack of initiative of management and their political shenanigans. The problem seems to stem from the top management who seem corrupt. Ramifications filter all the way down to employees throughout the organization who are insufficiently motivated. Communication also seems to be lacking, and employees seem to be unaware of the end-results of their tasks. Given the size of the organization, it makes sense that the structure should be this way. It would benefit from closer connection between higher management and all employees and this could be done by management taking greater interest in employees and in their work.

Interviewee went into full detail regarding structure, provided adequate detail regrading strategic management plan, enthusiastically dwelling on the 4 phases of the plan, how she actualized them, and how she gave the employees needed training and monitored the plan. All of this sounds excellent, and she sounds as though she's doing her job. Particularity the way she delineated in the scorecard and on the 4 phases makes me consider her conscientious. She seems to be folowing requirements and accomplishing them as she assessed.

Interviewee discussed employees participation in the plan (Participation in strategic planning ) pointing out that management support was lacking. As regards Political behavior in strategic planning, management conduct were clearly more interested in their own agendas than in the good of the organization resulting in poor transparency. It seems to me that no wonder difficulties are manifest through organization and that organization needs reshuffling. It also makes me wonder about integrity of business since corruption and interest-seeking often develops into poor integrity issues. Strategic plan implementation - employees were periodically trained by attending retreats. They needed technical training. She was mostly given the resources to implement her plans. She was pleased with the outcomes of the plan - Strategic plan assessment and outcomes - and related her future requirements as consisting of improved communication and transparency and technical training for employees. I would rate the quality of her work and the quality of the interview high. She seems motivated and interested in her work.

The second interview sounds dispiriting. The answers are short and sullen. The man provided me with little insight about structure. His opinion was almost reverse to that of the woman where he thought that top management and middle management were motivated but that employees were demotivated. My opinion: This may have been due to the fact that he was guarded in his response. Poor motivation on employees part, besides, often indicates deficiency on part of higher management. In fact, many of his responses do seem guarded and either he was unwilling to be forthcoming information, or he simply did not know. He sounds poorly motivated himself. He provided me with little helpful information about strategic plan development, and was not forthcoming about political behavior. As regards strategic plan implementation, he did agree with the fact that employees received no incentive and that communication was stunted between top and lower management as he also agreed with the woman's opinion that the team of internal experts were adequate to deal with the organization's needs (although the woman qualified her response). Occasionally, however, external opinion is valuable since internal sources may be subjective and are too closely connected to organization. Although both interviewees thought the strategic management plan department to have an effect in various ways on the rest of the organization, the man considered that it were more beneficial to have the department removed whilst the woman thought that it was important for the rest of the organization to realize the importance that the department had on the organization as a whole positively affecting it in numerous ways. I happen to think that both have points and that their opinions can be converged. The woman was pleased with the strategic plan outcome; the man could provide no opinion. He seemed disinterested. His recommendations for the future were to motivate employees, have them more involved in the work of the division, and have management more involved in ongoing projects. His response was weak, and the quality of the interview poor.