Organizational Design, Change, HR, and Motivation Theories

Organizational Structure and Chart Analysis

The organizational chart example considered here illustrates a formal structure based on job function. The structure of the chart suggests a mechanistic approach to conducting business, as the lines of reporting are clearly demarcated and indicate functional relationships between positions. A dotted line drawn between the Construction Group and the Project Manager would be a change that might encourage more organic functioning between the engineering group and the construction group. This change could signal to the two groups of employees that they are expected to communicate and coordinate in a timely and adequately detailed fashion, without necessarily routing everything through the technical advisor.

If the role of the Technical Advisor is precisely advisory, then it does not make sense for that position to hold a key place in the hierarchy for these two groups of workers. Reviewing the organizational chart in this way suggests that the designer of the chart may have conflated process flow charts with organizational charts. It is logical for the technical advisor to conduct work associated with that role at a point in a flow chart that precedes the handoff to the Construction Group and the Production Manager. It also seems desirable to articulate direct connections between the structural engineer, the surveyors, the site supervisors, and the site inspectors, rather than always routing communication through the technical advisor.

Personality, Change Resistance, and the Big Five Model

Although people tend to have aspects of their personalities that are more or less oriented toward adaptability, it is entirely possible to increase one's tolerance for change — including tolerance for ambiguity and cognitive dissonance. The Big Five trait theory of personality articulates the following major aspects of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. People who score high on the openness scale are more inclined to be less resistant to change than people who score low on this scale. This theory has shown remarkable stability across different types of measures and situations. However, the dimensions and facets of the five major traits allow for even finer discrimination of personality. The six facets of openness include active imagination (or fantasy), aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, and intellectual curiosity.

It is reasonable to assume that, at some level, people choose their occupations based on the fit between their personalities and the demands of the job. If this is fundamentally true, then people will tend to work in positions that are a good match for the way they deal with change in their organizations. For example, someone who is an accountant may score lower on the openness scale than someone who is a client account relationship manager. It is entirely appropriate and even desirable for an accountant to be less receptive to change; the nature of accounting requires absolute consistency with regard to exacting standards of practice. Too much deviation in accounting practices can trigger forensic accountants to become involved and raise suspicion of malfeasance. A client account relationship manager, on the other hand, needs to be quite flexible and willing to adjust on a moment-to-moment basis to the needs and desires of clients. With respect to asking employees to adapt to change, it is apparent that comfort with change will be more of a stretch for some employees than for others — and this reductionist analysis does not begin to address the many other factors that can inhibit or facilitate acceptance of change.

As a personal example of resistance to a change initiative, my assessment at the time was that the proposed change was being presented as important to the company, while I believed it was actually intended to further the career of the person promoting the idea. The proposed change was to completely redesign the company logo, which had been in place for nearly 20 years. Notably, the clientele of this company were fundamentally conservative, and the firm's reputation was one of considered action and appropriately managed levels of risk. As ideas about the logo redesign were circulated, the person heading the effort solicited feedback from employees across the company. I expressed my concerns about the negative repercussions of changing the long-standing company logo. I did not, however, voice my suspicion that the logo change was intended to justify the existence of the marketing department — and particularly the creative staff who would be heavily engaged in any resulting work.

Apparently I was not the only person who considered the logo redesign to be without merit: the proposed changes were not implemented. The company ultimately acted as a learning organization, using a considerable amount of information to decide against subjecting the firm's logo to redesign.

Conclusion

Each of these opportunities is undergirded by the supports and conditions indicated by the lower levels of the hierarchy. Opportunities to apply for jobs would hold no immediate value for someone who has not eaten in days or who is surrounded by people capable of transmitting a fatal disease at any moment. This reality is aptly captured in the film The Pursuit of Happyness, in which the protagonist — played by Will Smith — is unable to find a pencil with which to write down the contact number of a man who might give him a job. This memorable scene is a vivid manifestation of life at the Physiological level for someone who could easily reach a higher level, if only given the chance — if the stars align.