Fluent Essays

please read the regulations carefully and I have been attached chapter 05 to know the context and the rubric to follow to exceed expectations. SEU Discussion Board Rubric Meets Expectation Approaches Expectation Below Expectation Limited Evidence No Evidence Content, Research, and Analysis 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Content Meets Expectation - Demonstrates excellent knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories relevant to topic. Approaches Expectation - Demonstrates fair knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories. Below Expectation - Demonstrates significantly flawed knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories. Limited Evidence - Demonstrates poor or absent knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories. No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Support Meets Expectation - Statements are well supported; posts extend discussion. Approaches Expectation - Statements are partially supported; posts may extend discussion. Below Expectation - Support is deficient; posts do not extend discussion. Limited Evidence - Statements are not supported No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Writing Quality Meets Expectation - Writing is well organized, clear, concise, and focused; no errors. Approaches Expectation - Some significant but not major errors or omissions in writing organization, focus, and clarity. Below Expectation - Numerous significant errors or omissions in writing organization, focus, and clarity. Limited Evidence - Numerous errors or omissions—at least some major— in writing organization, focus, and clarity. No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Timeliness Meets Expectation - Initial post made before deadline. Approaches Expectation - Initial post made 1 day late. Below Expectation - Initial post 2 days late. Limited Evidence - Initial post 3 days late. No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Quantity Meets Expectation - Initial post and two other posts of substance. Approaches Expectation - Initial post and one other post of substance. Below Expectation - Initial post only. Limited Evidence - One post of substance to colleagues. No Evidence - Did not participate. Points Possible: 10 293 Impact of Uncertainty and Complexity on Formal Structures and Systems Another way of thinking about structural alignment is to begin by reflecting on the environment they operate in. Beginning with the work of Thompson in the 1960s,9 researchers have explored the impact of uncertainty and complexity on why organizations structure their systems and processes as they do and the impact these configurations have on their capacity to successfully adapt to the environment over time.10 When examining the structural dimensions, organizations have often been classified into two types: (1) those that are more formal, more differentiated, more centralized, and more standardized; and (2) those that are less formal, less differentiated, more decentralized, and less standardized. The terms that are applied to this organizational typology are mechanistic and organic. Table 5.1 outlines the characteristics of mechanistic and organic organizational forms as opposite ends of a continuum.11 Table 5.1 Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms Table 5.1 Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms More Mechanistic → More Organic Tasks are broken down into separate parts and rigidly defined and assigned Flexible tasks that are adjusted and redefined through teamwork and participation 294 More Mechanistic → More Organic High degree of formalization, strict hierarchy of authority and control, many rules Relatively little formalization, less reliance on a hierarchy of authority and control, few rules, greater participation and decentralization Narrow span of control with reliance on hierarchies of people in specialized roles Wide span of control Knowledge and control of tasks are centralized at the top of the organization, limited decision making at lower levels Knowledge and control of tasks are decentralized and located throughout the organization; highly decentralized decision making Communication is vertical Communication is horizontal and free flowing, with many integrating roles Simple, straightforward planning processes Sophisticated environmental scanning, planning, and forecasting, including the use of scenarios and contingency thinking Source: Adapted from Daft, R. I. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed., p. 152). Mason, OH: South-Western. Mechanistic organizations rely on formal hierarchies with centralized decision making and a clear division of labor. Rules and procedures are clearly defined and employees are expected to follow them. Work is specialized and routine. Mechanistic organizations tend to be concentrated in industries where the risk of getting it wrong is high. For example, nuclear power suppliers 295 or pharmacy industries will be extremely mechanistic in order to manage the high risk and detailed logistics of their business. Organic organizations are more flexible. They have fewer rules and procedures, and there is less reliance on the hierarchy of authority for centralized decision making. The structure is flexible and not as well defined. Jobs are less specialized. Communication is more informal, and lateral communications are more accepted. Many start-up companies and companies in creative fields will be more organic, allowing increased communication and flexibility in day-to-day tasks. While it may appear that one structural form is more appealing than the other, both can be effective depending upon their fit with the environment. When efficiency is critical to success and ambiguity and uncertainty are low to moderate, a more mechanistic structure will fit best. However, when an organization’s ability to respond to its environment with flexibility and adaptiveness is critical to its success, a more organic structure will make more sense.12 Chapter 5 • Navigating Change through Formal Structures and Systems Impact of Uncertainty and Complexity on Formal Structures and Systems 286 Chapter Five Navigating Change Through Formal Structures and Systems Chapter Overview This chapter discusses the basics of how organizations structure themselves. It outlines how change leaders can diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of existing systems and structures. It examines how the formal structure and systems can foster, impair, and facilitate the acceptance of change initiatives. It lays out ways to manage systems and structures to gain approval for change initiatives. Formal, coalition-building, and renegade approaches are discussed. Finally, it reviews the ways to develop more adaptive systems and structures to increase the likelihood of continuous improvement. Any discussion of organizational change needs to pay careful attention to the role of formal systems and structures. They influence what gets done, how it gets done, the outcomes that are achieved, and the experiences of the people who come into contact with the organization. While leaders define their organizational systems and structures, the systems and structures —paradoxically—also shape the behavior of organizational leaders and members. Formal systems and structures play important coordination, communication, and control roles, and they influence how decisions are made about change and who is authorized to make changes. Sometimes, systems and structures need to change. An organization’s formal structure is defined by how tasks are formally divided, grouped, and coordinated.1 Formal structures are designed to support the strategic direction of the firm by enhancing order, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. They serve as guides and controls on decision-making authority, 287 coordinate and integrate operations, provide direction to internal governance, and attempt to promote desired behaviors and organizational outcomes.2 The organizational chart is the common document of organizational design. Formal systems include planned routines and processes such as strategic planning, accounting and control systems, performance management, pay and reward systems, and the information system. Collectively, these set out how things are supposed to be done, the rules and procedures to be followed, how information is collected and disseminated, how individuals are to be compensated, and all the other formalized systems and processes that are used for coordination, integration, and control purposes. They provide the formal infrastructure that operationalizes the organizational structure. Organizations vary in their need for complexity in their structures and systems, but all require some degree of formalization to be sustainable. These are modified over time as conditions change and they need to bring themselves into alignment with external conditions and the organization’s strategy. The corner grocer needs simple systems for accounting, staffing, and managing suppliers, pricing, and inventory. Walmart, on the other hand, requires highly sophisticated systems and structures to efficiently and profitably handle $500 billion in net sales, processed by 2.3 million associates in 11,700 stores that operate in 28 countries.3 Walmart’s sales channels include e-commerce websites in 11 countries, contributing $11.5 billion in online sales in 2017, an increase of 44\% over 2016.4 One reason that Walmart dominates the consumer retail market is its logistics systems that coordinate all aspects of inventory management, from ordering through to shipping, warehousing, shelving, and final disposition. Its knowledge-management system, Retail Link, provides Walmart and its suppliers with data that allow them to identify emerging opportunities for their products. Their systems are continuously improved in order to better drive business results, and they are demonstrating their ability to effectively extend their technical reach to the world of online retailing. It is systems like this that allow Walmart to satisfy 288 multiple stakeholders and maintain its competitive position in the industry.5 This chapter describes the purposes that formal systems and structures play in advancing change. It also provides guidance in identifying the gap between the existing structures and systems, and what is needed to bring about alignment after the change. Figure 5.1 outlines where this chapter fits in the change- management process. This chapter is the first of four that details how change leaders can advance a sophisticated gap analysis and deploy it in pursuit of change. This chapter deals with formal systems and structures, and the chapters that follow will cover the informal aspects of organizations, change stakeholders and recipients, and change leaders themselves. Change leaders need to develop a deep understanding of how existing structures and systems are currently influencing outcomes and how they are likely to facilitate or impede the proposed changes. Once that understanding is developed, change leaders need to put that system and structural awareness to use to promote and enact change. To advance this agenda, the chapter is divided into four sections: 1. Making sense of organizational structures and systems 2. Diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of existing systems and structures 3. Understanding how structures and systems influence the approval process of a change initiative and how they then facilitate or hinder the acceptance of change 4. Designing adaptive structures and systems to enhance future change initiatives Figure 5.1 The Change-Management Process 289 290 Making Sense of Formal Structures and Systems The structural frame,6 to use the language of Bolman and Deal, outlines an internal blueprint for how managers assign tasks, roles, and authority to produce products or services for the external marketplace. Wrapped around this structure are all the formal systems and processes that are designed to bring the structure to life and make it possible for the organization to deliver on its strategy and value proposition. To make sense of structures, it is useful for change leaders to understand and be able to work with core concepts in this area. These are some of the more common elements:7 1. Differentiation: The degree to which tasks are subdivided into separate jobs or tasks. This concept deals with who does what and asks about the degree to which jobs are specialized and distinctive from one another on both the horizontal and vertical organizational axes. The differentiation of tasks is an early step in the life of an entrepreneurial adventure as it grows from one to two and then three people, with further differentiation of tasks as the number of employees increases. As organizations grow and add more people, tasks are divided and subdivided. Large organizations, as a consequence, are often characterized by highly specialized jobs, leading to silos of similar and separate tasks and job categories. 2. Integration: The coordination of the various tasks or jobs into a department or group. This is the extent to which activities are combined into processes and systems, pulling together all the disparate pieces of tasks and jobs into a coherent whole. Small organizations are typically structured in a simple and straightforward manner, organized by functions such as production, accounting/finance, sales and marketing, and human resources. As they grow and become more complex, executives look for more efficient and effective ways to group tasks and 291 activities. Departments or divisions may be organized geographically or by product category, customer segment, or some other hybrid approach such as networks that seem to offer the best way to organize activities at that point in time. Sometimes they may even be spun off as separate, stand-alone entities. In large organizations, such as Boeing, there are integrative roles with people and teams who specialize in coordinating and communicating in order to bring together the disparate parts of the enterprise. 3. Chain of command: The reporting architecture in a hierarchical organization. This concept defines how individuals and/or units within an organization report to one another up and down the organizational ladder. It reflects the formal power structure and where decision responsibilities lie within the hierarchy. 4. Span of control: The number of individuals who report to a manager. This notion questions the optimal ratio of workers to managers in an organization. Since there is no one correct way to answer this question, part of the art of organizational design is to figure this out, given the culture, strategy, and what needs to be done. An organization that gives managers too little span of control runs the risk of creating a costly and top-heavy administrative structure and encourages its managers to micromanage too few employees. On the other hand, managers who have too many employees reporting to them run the risk of inadequate supervision, feedback, and employee development. 5. Centralization vs. decentralization: How and where decision making is distributed in an organizational structure. The more centralized the approach, the more the decision making gravitates to the top of the organization. Conversely, the more decentralized it is, the more the decision making is delegated to lower levels of employees. In general, organizations flatten their hierarchies when they adopt a more decentralized approach and vice versa. 6. Formal vs. informal: The degree to which organizational charts exist, are codified, and are followed. This is the extent to which structures and processes of the organization are set down in writing and expected to be followed.8 292 To practice understanding change on existing structures and systems see Toolkit Exercise 5.2. 293 Impact of Uncertainty and Complexity on Formal Structures and Systems Another way of thinking about structural alignment is to begin by reflecting on the environment they operate in. Beginning with the work of Thompson in the 1960s,9 researchers have explored the impact of uncertainty and complexity on why organizations structure their systems and processes as they do and the impact these configurations have on their capacity to successfully adapt to the environment over time.10 When examining the structural dimensions, organizations have often been classified into two types: (1) those that are more formal, more differentiated, more centralized, and more standardized; and (2) those that are less formal, less differentiated, more decentralized, and less standardized. The terms that are applied to this organizational typology are mechanistic and organic. Table 5.1 outlines the characteristics of mechanistic and organic organizational forms as opposite ends of a continuum.11 Table 5.1 Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms Table 5.1 Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms More Mechanistic → More Organic Tasks are broken down into separate parts and rigidly defined and assigned Flexible tasks that are adjusted and redefined through teamwork and participation 294 More Mechanistic → More Organic High degree of formalization, strict hierarchy of authority and control, many rules Relatively little formalization, less reliance on a hierarchy of authority and control, few rules, greater participation and decentralization Narrow span of control with reliance on hierarchies of people in specialized roles Wide span of control Knowledge and control of tasks are centralized at the top of the organization, limited decision making at lower levels Knowledge and control of tasks are decentralized and located throughout the organization; highly decentralized decision making Communication is vertical Communication is horizontal and free flowing, with many integrating roles Simple, straightforward planning processes Sophisticated environmental scanning, planning, and forecasting, including the use of scenarios and contingency thinking Source: Adapted from Daft, R. I. (2007). Organization theory and design (9th ed., p. 152). Mason, OH: South-Western. Mechanistic organizations rely on formal hierarchies with centralized decision making and a clear division of labor. Rules and procedures are clearly defined and employees are expected to follow them. Work is specialized and routine. Mechanistic organizations tend to be concentrated in industries where the risk of getting it wrong is high. For example, nuclear power suppliers 295 or pharmacy industries will be extremely mechanistic in order to manage the high risk and detailed logistics of their business. Organic organizations are more flexible. They have fewer rules and procedures, and there is less reliance on the hierarchy of authority for centralized decision making. The structure is flexible and not as well defined. Jobs are less specialized. Communication is more informal, and lateral communications are more accepted. Many start-up companies and companies in creative fields will be more organic, allowing increased communication and flexibility in day-to-day tasks. While it may appear that one structural form is more appealing than the other, both can be effective depending upon their fit with the environment. When efficiency is critical to success and ambiguity and uncertainty are low to moderate, a more mechanistic structure will fit best. However, when an organization’s ability to respond to its environment with flexibility and adaptiveness is critical to its success, a more organic structure will make more sense.12 296 Formal Structures and Systems From an Information Perspective A third way of thinking about the impact of systems and structures on how and why firms operate as they do is to look at how they formally manage information. One of the primary purposes of formal structures and systems is to place the right information in the hands of appropriate individuals in a timely fashion so that they can do what is needed. Information technology has been instrumental in allowing organizations to develop structures and systems that are more robust, dynamic, and flexible. Conversely, Atul Gawada reports that doctors hate their computers, reflecting the paradox some feel between the need for consistency and reliability and the need for individual autonomy and professional judgement in matters of analyses and how best to move forward13 (New Yorker article). Supply chains, distributed manufacturing, flattened hierarchies with empowered workgroups, and networked organizations all owe their growth to improvements in this area. It has let organizations such as Dell to move from mass production models to mass customization, with little productivity loss.14 However, those who have successfully made the transition have done so by giving very careful attention to the end state and the optimal route for getting there.15 By extension, technology has also allowed us to think differently about structures and systems when planning and managing organizational change. For example, telecommunication advances mean virtual teams distributed around the globe can be created, meet “face to face,” access and share information in real time, and move projects forward in ways that were not possible 10 years ago. Jay Galbraith defines this as the information-processing view of organizations.16 If the organization is to perform effectively, there needs to be a fit between the organization’s information- processing requirements and its capacity to process information through its structural design choices. The better the fit between 297 these, the more effective the organization will be. As uncertainty increases, the amount of information that must be processed between decision makers during the transformation process increases. The organization must either increase its capacity to handle that information or restructure itself to reduce the need for information handling. Figure 5.2 outlines Galbraith’s work. As uncertainty increases, the traditional vertical information strategies for uncertainty reduction will prove increasingly less effective, and the organization will require methods that either reduce the need for information processing or increase the capacity of the organization to process information.17 Organizations can reduce their information-processing challenges by adding slack resources to act as buffers (e.g., extra people and inventory) and/or by creating self-contained tasks (e.g., divisions organized around product categories, geography, or customers). For example, extra inventory means that increased variation in demand for a product will be handled by drawing down or increasing inventory levels. Similarly, separating an organization into divisions operating as profit centers means that the divisions may not need to coordinate their activities as much. This reduces the information-processing requirements. Figure 5.2 An Information-Processing View of Organizational Structure 298 Source: Adapted from Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; and Daft, R. L. (2003). Organization theory and design (8th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western. Initially, organizations may attempt to increase their information- processing capacity by using the hierarchy (i.e., vertical communication). That is, if you are uncertain what to do, ask your boss. If the situation becomes repetitive, create a decision rule to guide the decision. If the subordinate knows more about the situation than the boss, they can agree on a set of criteria that allows the subordinate to act independently and handle the uncertainty. These represent what Galbraith calls vertical information strategies. A further vertical information strategy is when organizations increase their capacity to process information by investing in vertical information systems (e.g., computer- generated performance reports, decision support systems). Organizations also can improve their information-processing ability by increasing their horizontal communication capacity (e.g., 299 e-mail systems, intranets, electronic bulletin boards, texting, and various forms of social media). They can increase the capacity to process information horizontally by creating lateral relationships that vary in complexity from something as simple as direct, informal contact, to more formal networks and complex, formal structures such as a matrix that are intended to facilitate the hierarchical and horizontal flow of information. The role of the information systems is to distribute needed information and get it to the individuals who most need it in a timely manner for decision making. Interdepartmental and interdivisional boundaries and jurisdictional disputes can impede the flow of information. The investigation of the 9/11 tragedy pointed to examples of this.18 Information was present in various departments and agencies at the federal and state levels that would have assisted in alerting officials to the danger, but communication impediments kept it from being shared and integrated in a timely fashion. Removing impediments is easier said than done in large, complex organizations. Issues such as privacy, data and system security, decision rights (who is supposed to do what with the information), and protection of intellectual property must be sorted out. Questions related to where information resides, in what forms, and who should have access to it need to be tackled before it can be pulled together. Galbraith identified seven types of lateral relations that will help overcome boundaries that impair information flow. These are listed below: 1. direct contact between affected individuals (e.g., a product designer and a manufacturing engineer) 2. use of individuals in liaison roles to bridge groups 3. multidepartment task forces 4. formal teams 5. integrating roles such as a product manager with cross- departmental authority 6. managerial linking roles (similar to the integrating roles but with more formal decision authority) 7. structures with dual-authority relationships, such as are found in a matrix organization 300 If the organization is to perform effectively, this model points to the importance of congruence between the firm’s strategy, its information-processing requirements (e.g., market and competitive information, operational information), and the information-processing capacity that the firm’s design choices promote. Change leaders need to be aware of the impact of vertical and horizontal information strategies on information flows and organizational performance when assessing what needs to change. Further, sensitivity to these issues needs to extend to the actual management of the change process. This is because even well-managed change will increase uncertainty in the short term, and major changes will significantly increase it for longer periods of time. This will give rise to information-processing needs that change leaders will need to develop and manage. Research reported by McKinsey and Company point to the value of making greater use of social media technologies and paying more attention to networks to advance change initiatives.19 When change leaders don’t pay sufficient attention to the information- processing needs related to change, the lack of fit may impair the effectiveness of the change initiative. Multiple actions in this area are often needed to support a change initiative — extra resources to increase the capacity to process information, a focus on understanding the goals and purposes, and a significant increase in lateral relations. 301 Aligning Systems and Structures With the Environment The structural variables and models outlined above provide change leaders with an introduction to the multiple perspectives they can use when assessing structures and the formal systems that are developed to bring them to life. This can prove helpful when evaluating the internal consistency of structures and systems and their alignment with an organization’s strategy, vision, culture, and environment. When cost strategies in a traditional manufacturing context are critical, a more mechanistic approach is often appropriate. When innovation is key, organic approaches provide a better fit with an organization’s strategy.20 In their quest to improve their performance, there is a tendency for managers to increasingly seek out efficiency improvements. At the same time there is a tendency to avoid potentially valuable innovations that may be more disruptive in the short term.21 Keeping these in appropriate balance is challenging for change agents as the organization matures. For change leaders, the importance of this material lies in the fact that organizations need to align their formal structures and systems with their strategy and their environments. In 2008, ITT, an engineering firm serving the energy, transportation, and industrial markets, took a hard look at the alignment of its formal structures. This led ITT to drop its organization-wide performance rating system when management realized it was having an adverse impact on employees in different parts of the company’s global operations and was not accomplishing its purpose. For example, a “3” or average on its 5-point rating scale of performance was viewed negatively by its Chinese employees, who saw it as a loss of face. This resulted in increased dissatisfaction and turnover. ITT realigned its formal performance rating system globally to reflect cultural differences and removed this global rating scale. In China, turnover was halved following the change.22 ITT is not alone in abandoning its existing approach to performance assessment. Microsoft, Dell, IBM, and many other 302 firms have done the same, having concluded that their existing approaches were harmful to advancing the outcomes they hoped to achieve.23 In Nadler and Tushman’s terminology, there needs to be congruence between the outside world, the strategy, and how the inside world is formally organized. By understanding the nature of the external environment and the organization’s strategy, history, and resources, a change leader gains insight into the types of structures and systems that have the most to offer. By understanding the formal organizational arrangements, the leader gains insights on where and how decisions are made and how these can be leveraged to advance change. Change leaders also need to be aware that even in a fairly mechanistic organization, different departments and divisions may face very different information-processing needs and will therefore need to be structured and managed differently. For example, a firm’s R&D department’s environment may be more dynamic and uncertain than that faced by the production department. As a result, R&D may need a more organic structure, whereas the production department will benefit from a more mechanistic one that leverages well-developed, standardized processes. Likewise, those involved with the launch of a new product or expansion into a new market will have to deal with higher levels of uncertainty and complexity than those responsible for mature markets, where concerns for structures and systems that enhance efficiency are likely the norm. 303 Structural Changes to Handle Increased Uncertainty From a structural perspective, the quest for enhanced organizational efficiency and effectiveness starts by looking at what needs to change in the organization and deciding how best to analyze and allocate the work. These differentiation approaches include aspects such as division of labor and departmentalization. If this has already been done, the challenge usually shifts to a discussion of how to integrate the components so that they can accomplish the intended results. The vertical and horizontal information linkage strategies identified by Galbraith in Figure 5.2 are examples of such integrating approaches. Sorting out the decision rights (who is authorized to make what sorts of decisions) and insuring the flow of appropriate information to those responsible for such decisions is critical to successful alignment.24 Boeing’s redesigned approach to the development and manufacturing of its aircraft provides an excellent example of the application of structural changes in a very complex business. The aircraft manufacturer realized that it had to change its approach to compete with Airbus, and it did so in its approach to the development of the 787. Boeing Restructures Itself Before the 787, Boeing did all the engineering design work itself. The main reason to change, says Mike Bair, head of the 787 development team, was that the company realized it had to trawl the world and find the best suppliers in order to compete with its main rival in the market for commercial aircraft, the increasingly successful Airbus. Airbus, a joint European venture involving French, German, British, and Spanish partners, started from scratch. Almost by accident it stumbled on an organizational architecture that, along with generous subsidies, helped it overtake the giant of the business in less than two decades. 304 Boeing’s reorganized commercial plane development operations now look more like the approach used by Airbus. It scoured the globe for new partners and found some in Europe, some in Japan, and some not far from its home base in the United States. Whereas with the 777 aircraft the company worked with 500–700 suppliers, for the 787 it selected just under 100 “partners.” The difference is not just in the numbers, but in the relationship. Their supplier partners now share greater responsibility for the success of the project. For over six months in 2005, teams of people from the various 787 partners met at Boeing’s base in Everett, north of Seattle, to work together on the configuration of the plane— something that until then Boeing had always done by itself. Partners then went back to their own bases, responsible for all aspects of their piece of the puzzle. The partners built their own production facilities for their bits of the aircraft. As Bair said, “It puts a high premium on the choice of partners in the first place.” It also put a high premium on the management of that network of partners. Boeing held a partners’ “council meeting” every six weeks and set up a network to facilitate global collaboration that made it possible for designers from all over the world to work on the same up-to-the-minute database. To further advance communication, collaboration and integration, the company put great faith in videoconferencing and set up high- bandwidth facilities that were in constant use. People came into their offices in the middle of the night to have virtual meetings with colleagues in different time zones. Technically, the 787 is an American plane; but in reality it is a global one.25 The 787 was designed to be a breakthrough product, with features that would dramatically improve its performance on all fronts—from fuel consumption to customer comfort. However, breakthroughs with sophisticated new technologies and materials do not come easy. The project was 3½ years late in making it into the hands of its initial customers and development cost ballooned 120\% over the original estimate. When the first few planes entered service, performance in areas such as weight and fuel efficiency was found to be wanting. Battery-related fires required the grounding of the plane until they were successfully sorted, creating additional challenges and reputational risk. However, Boeing was finally on its way to success with the 787 by the end of 2013. In that year, it had carried over 10 million passengers, flown … MGT-521: Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms Regulations:  · GRADING EXPECTATIONS : 1. I recommend that you use the grading rubric to shape your work product (Attached).   2. With respect to grading, The instructor really looks for 2 things:  citations and substance . I encourage you to include cites and information from scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources in addition to the course text (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN) Otherwise, my potential for points is reduced. It  indicates you have read the course materials and searched far and wide for theories, statistics, and facts to address the issue at hand. I encourage you to paraphrase these sources. Convert the content into your own words rather than using direct quotes. This improves the synthesis of information, and it makes the writing more closely resemble your own style.  In addition to scholarly citations, a substantive assignment is one that not only answers the question but advances the discussion. Please, do more than is expected. · The writer must apply APA style guidelines.   · Support your submission with: 3. Course material concepts, principles, and theories from the textbook and Use it in the references (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN) 1.  At least Three scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles such as: 1.1 Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J., & Balogun, J. (2019). The social practice of coevolving strategy and structure to realize mandated radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 850–882. 1.2 Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., & Ekkirala, S. (2019). The voice bystander effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 828-849. 1.3 Waeger, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Institutional complexity and organizational change: An open policy perspective. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 336–359. · Be 2 pages in length, does not include the title page, abstract, conclusion and required reference page, which are never a part of the minimum content requirements.    Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms As noted throughout Chapter 5 (Attached), systems and structures can influence a change initiative and the organization’s culture as a whole. In hopes of ensuring that changes are adopted, it is critical that the proper structures are created, which is aligned with the organization’s culture. Many factors can influence the success of certain cultures. For example, in Table 5.1 (Attached), mechanistic and organic organizational forms are discussed. For the purpose of this assignment, please do the following: · Choose a current organization or a past employer, or an organization that you are familiar with. Explain details about your organization’s culture as aligned with the information in Table 5.1. For example, explain why your organization is flexible or is rigid in terms of tasks. Provide specific examples as related to two of the six criteria listed. It is important to note that your organization might not be mechanistic in all components or organic in all components. · Based upon the information that you have presented, explain why you believe that your organization falls into a mechanistic or organic organization type. · Based upon your organization type, explain the implications of utilizing the opposite approach when implementing a change initiative. What types of issues are likely to occur? Why? Thank you for your support MGT - 5 21 : Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms Regulations : · GRADING EXPECTATIONS   : 1. I recommend that you use the grading rubric to shape your work product ( Attached ).    2. With respect to   grading, The instructor really looks for 2 things:   citations   and substance . I encourage you to include cites and information from   scholarly and/or peer - reviewed sources in addition to the course text ( Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action - oriented toolkit (4th ed .). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN ) Otherwise , my potential for points is reduced. It   indicates you have read the course materials and searched far and wide for theories, statistics, and facts   to address the issue at hand.   I encourage you to paraphrase these sources. Convert the content into your own words rather than using direct quotes . This improves the synthesis of information, and it makes the writing more closely resemble your own style.   In addition to   scholarly citations, a substanti ve assignment is one that not only answers the question but advances the discussion. Please, do more than is expected. · The writer must apply APA style guidelines . · Support your submission with: 3. Course material concepts, principles, and theories from the textbook and Use it in the references ( Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action - oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN ) 1.   At least Three scholarly, peer - reviewed journal articles such as: 1.1 Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J., & Balogun, J. (2019). The social practice of coevolving strategy and structure to realize mandated radical change . Academy of Manag ement Journal, 62(3), 850 – 882. 1.2 Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., & Ekkirala, S. (2019). The voice bystander effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice . Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 828 - 849. 1.3 Waeger, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Institutiona l complexity and organizational change: An open policy perspective . Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 336 – 359. · Be 2 pages in length, does not include the title page, abstract, conclusion and required reference page, which are never a part of the mini mum content requirements. MGT-521: Mechanistic and Organic Organizational Forms Regulations:  GRADING EXPECTATIONS : 1. I recommend that you use the grading rubric to shape your work product (Attached).   2. With respect to grading, The instructor really looks for 2 things: citations and substance. I encourage you to include cites and information from scholarly and/or peer-reviewed sources in addition to the course text (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN) Otherwise, my potential for points is reduced. It  indicates you have read the course materials and searched far and wide for theories, statistics, and facts to address the issue at hand. I encourage you to paraphrase these sources. Convert the content into your own words rather than using direct quotes. This improves the synthesis of information, and it makes the writing more closely resemble your own style.  In addition to scholarly citations, a substantive assignment is one that not only answers the question but advances the discussion. Please, do more than is expected.  The writer must apply APA style guidelines.  Support your submission with: 3. Course material concepts, principles, and theories from the textbook and Use it in the references (Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2020). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. ISBN) 1.  At least Three scholarly, peer-reviewed journal articles such as: 1.1 Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J., & Balogun, J. (2019). The social practice of coevolving strategy and structure to realize mandated radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 850–882. 1.2 Hussain, I., Shu, R., Tangirala, S., & Ekkirala, S. (2019). The voice bystander effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 828- 849. 1.3 Waeger, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Institutional complexity and organizational change: An open policy perspective. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 336–359.  Be 2 pages in length, does not include the title page, abstract, conclusion and required reference page, which are never a part of the minimum content requirements.