BEYOND TERRITORY AND TURF: A BOUNDARYLESS ADMINISTRATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

PresenterCavil Anderson

PhD Candidate – WF ED

Penn State University

Date: March 16, 2010

1.

1. Purpose 2. Purpose of Study 3. Conceptual Framework 4. Significance of study 5. Research question

Sequence of the Presentation

- A variety of organizational forms and management structures to enhance communication, reduce risk, and control uncertainty

- Unintended effects on organizational design, the job itself, various human resources planning, control and development systems, things such as physical barriers, offices, and also organizational culture (Cavaleri & Fearon, 1996, p. 154).

Purpose

- Different departments acting in isolation or even in conflict with each other. - Incapable of replicating operations to create peak performance for the organization. - Assessing - patterns of disconnect according to Oshry (1995) - poor communication, duplication of work, internal competition, lack of synergy, and shortsighted solutions (p. 1).

purpose…continue

- - further complicated by the focus component parts of an organization, such as processes, people, and

technology within functional units.

- Bryan and Joyce (2007) “one company governance model” cannot mobilize mind power, labor, and capital on an enterprise-wide basis (p. 63).

- first decade of the century is behind us, In essence, the cultural context in higher education has

changed but the management paradigm has not.

purpose…continue

- The walls between departments continue to exist, decisions continue to be made at the top, and the structure of the organization remain hierarchical.

- Emphasis on top-down planning and control repress innovation reduce the chances for an institution becoming a learning organization.

purpose…continue

The permanency of these walls has led to the coining of the phrase silos or silo mentality, which for the purpose of this paper refers to:

“where inside an organization there are separate departments which do not communicate with each other and are also actively trying to sabotage each other” (Garland, 2000, p. 1). These conditions are also thought of as the creation and function of an individual or of an organization’s culture.

Definition….Silo’s

Something to consider….The concept of a boundaryless organization – an institution without divisions or walls in higher education – is, according to Alfred and Rosevear (2000), a “fantasy” (p. 5).

5). - widespread / inevitable, leaders opt for tweaking their organizations rather than transforming them (Bryan & Joyce, 2007, p. 42-43).

- real cause of this dysfunction is systemic and predictable, according to Gharajedaghi (2006) will require a dual shift in paradigm. - Galbraith, Downey and Kates (2002) suggests that the need

for a reconfigurable organization arises from the decline in the sustainability of competitive advantage (p7).

continue…

- - Hoffman & Summers (2000) and

Diamond (2002) list shrinking budgets and

enrollment challenges, shifting demographics, technological advances and a

greater demand for skills based education

institutions. These forces acknowledge that the

landscape is about to change.

continue…

- growing demand for institutions to become joined-up.

- This paper intends to argue against on the phenomenon of silos,

or as it is also referred to as, departmental politics, divisional rivalry, or turf warfare(Lencione, 2006, p. 175) in favor of a “boundaryless” management and administration for higher education. - It is also important to point out that “boundaryless” should not be taken laterally. The purpose of this paper will therefore to investigate whether a boundaryless management and administration in higher education is practicable.

Research focus

An example of an organizational

chart for a university

Rules Coordination Office

rules@u.washington.eduModified: January 22, 2010

Several research questions will be asked to guide this study:

1) do institutions of higher learning think broadly about the interdependence of staff, customers, and beneficiaries? 2) To what extent do institutions search for solutions to break down traditional barriers that divide staff and distance the institution from customers?

3) How can the speed and efficiency of services between administrative departments be improved?

Research Questions

Conceptual Framework: Galbraith's Star Model

Socio-Technical Systems Approach

The methodology for this paper will be a literature study evaluating “boundarylessness” at General Electric using the five component parts of Galbraith star model. Boundarylessness was developed at General Electric through the introduction of a process called “Work-Out” in 1989. The process “Work- Out” is based on the premise that “those closest to the work know it

best”.

Methodology

Proponents of boundarylessness belief that:

1. Vertical boundaries between levels and ranks of people, 2. Horizontal boundaries between functions and disciplines, 3. External boundaries between the organization and

its suppliers, customers, and regulators and 4. Geographic boundaries between locations, cultures markets have stifled the flow of information and ideas among employees.

Continue…

- The significance according to Linden (1994) and Parker (1994) is

that the effort to provide a seamless experience for consumers

may evoke a pleasant sense of déjà vu for many.

- Organizations that move quickly, that provide variety,

customization, and personal services are actually relearning

something that once came naturally.

- The assumption of this era is that boundarylessness proposes

speed, flexibility, integration, and, innovation as opposed to size,

role clarity, specialization and control associated with the

previous era.

Significance of the study

After collecting and analyzing the data, the researcher will determine if a boundaryless culture encourages high levels of transformational behavior (speed, efficiency and effectiveness, flexibility, integration, innovation, and cost savings).

The implications may require deliberate changes in the structure and processes of an organization

driven by institutional leadership.

Data Analysis/Implications

Thank you…For information about the study, please

contact:Cavil Anderson

csa140@psu.edu717 877 0144

Q & A Session

 Alfred, R., & Rosevear S. (2000). Organizational structure, management, and leadership

for the future. In A.M. Hoffmann & R. W. Summers (Eds.), Managing colleges anduniversities: Issues for leadership (pp. 1-28). West Port, CT: Greenwood.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (2002). The boundaryless organization: Breaking

the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco: Jossey BassBryan, L. L., & Joyce, C. J. (2007). Creating wealth from talent in the 21st – Century

organization, mobilizing minds. New York: McKinsey. Cavaleri, S., & Fearon, D. (1996). Managing in organizations that learn. Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell. Diamond, M.R.(20020. Field guide to academic leadership: A publication of the national academic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Galbraith, J., Downey, D., & Kate, A. (2002). Designing dynamic organizations: A hands-

on guide for leaders at all levels. New York: AmacomGharajedaghi, J. (2006). Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform

for designing business architecture. London: Elsevier.

References

Kates, Amy., & Galbraith, J. (2007). Designing your organization: Using the star model to solve 5 critical design challenges. San Francisco: Jossey Bass

Lencione, P. (2006). Silos, politics and turf wars. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Linden R., M. (1994). Seamless Government: A practical guide to reengineering in the

public sector. San Francisco: Jossey BassOden, H.W. (1999). Transforming the organization: A social –technical approach. West

port, CT: Quorum Books. Oshry, B. (1995). Seeing systems. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.Parker, G. M. (1994). Cross functional teams: Working with allies, enemies & other

strangers. Francisco: Jossey-BassRothwell, W. J. Sullivan, R. (2005). Practicing organization development: A guide for

consultants. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Ulrich, D., & Kerr, S., & Ashkenas, R. (2002). GE Work-Out. How to implement GE’s revolutionary method for busting bureaucracy and attacking organization problems

- fast New York: McGraw

References continue…