In the three summers previous, I worked at a small factory near where I lived. This factory produced a number of different products involving windows and sliding glass doors. I simply worked putting parts together and sometimes on this machine that would assemble a part in three steps.
While the work was often boring, this company surely had a successful team in place. It definitely brought about some of the simple structures described in Bolman and Deal. When I started there three years ago in the summer, there was a very hierarchical structure in place. The two guys at the top, who started the company, reported to the middle manager, who happened to be one guy's daugher, who then set us up with what we would be doing during the day. The work could consist of sitting in a desk and putting parts together all day.
It also could mean working on one of the two machines that was set up for these certain parts to make. They were the most demanded products, so two teams of three would sit on the machine and run it to make the parts. This part of the day to day work would fit more with the circle structure. Each person would deal with the other two in different ways. I was often on housing, which was the "shell" of the product. I put the pieces on a belt that would move them up to be put in the two slots rotating around the machine. Then, the person to my left would have the inner part which consisted of springs. They needed to make sure that two of those parts would be sitting in the right spot for the machine to pick them up. Then, the same would happen with the last part, the "cover". It was much like the previous step in that two needed to be ready to be picked up. Also, I was in charge of catching the bad parts before they ended up in the boxes that would be packaged. So, the person in charge of the machine who applied the third part would trust me to see and catch the bad parts.
However, things began to change in my third summer there. They started adding on more people for the desk jobs and others to take calls, manage inventory, and lay out the product scheduling for the week. The person who used to be the middle manager earlier in my time there moved over to head the inventory and product scheduling part of the business. Then, for us working in the factory to put parts together and for the small group of guys working the plastics machines, a new guy was put in charge to manage that. So, over time, a dual authority started to take shape at the company.
From the perspective of Katzenbach and Smith, the team structure was set up well. One of the big parts of the company was that there was a manageable size. Overall, with two guys at the top, and the dual managers of each section, the entire company totaled 18 people. Some people would work the machine for parts. Other would put parts together in desk chairs. And, the group making the parts with the plastics machines would continue to make the products needed.
The other part of Katzenbach and Smith that applied to this workplace is the idea of being versatile. Most of the workers were able to perform more than one task and could be helping the company in multiple ways. If one or two workers are unable to show up, other workers could take their place in certain spot. Many people could do multiple spots on the machine, which was important because some of the people didn't work every day of the week.
I find the change from what looked like a single boss structure to a dual authority structure interesting. According to Katzenbach and Smith, this could make things less efficient, but by your account the company still ran smoothly. To be fair the company was still relatively small, so that probably helped a lot. There is also the factor of expanding, which can often lead to complications, but again, you say that the changes were smooth. It sounds to me like the company is well managed by the two men who started it.
ReplyDeleteWas there a system in place for who did what within each task, or was it arbitrarily delegated by the manager? If people got stuck with the same tasks I'd imagine it would hurt productivity, especially if it is a simple and repetitive one. If the workers talked amongst themselves to share tasks, how would you come to a consensus?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the final part of your post, I am curious how exactly workers were assigned to work. Obviously, if they are missing all the people who work on one part of the machine, they will take whomever is an extra person on another part of the machine. But was there some kind of priority system set up? Sure, if the work is simple, everyone could eventually learn how to perform in all parts of the production. But was there any way of telling who was better at what task? Did everyone have a default assigned task in the event that all workers show up? Were there people who were considered generalists (equally good at all tasks)? I feel that figuring these things out would've made a good team even better.
ReplyDeleteI am acknowledging this post. However, it is late. Please get your posts done earlier in the future.
ReplyDeleteSome of what you wrote I didn't understand. You were doing a summer job. I guess some others were too. What happened the rest of the year? How was it that the company could expand employment during the summer?
ReplyDeleteIt also seemed as if the organization was growing (presumably because demand for its products had grown). You made an interesting point that org structure might change as the organization gets larger. One the of the questions that would be have been interesting to get at is whether the growth was anticipated. Many organizations struggle from being early startups to the next phase, where they have to regularize much of their business practices. Quite a few don't make the transition and end up failing.