(opener)
A visit to McDonald's will never be the same after reading this case. McDonald's as represented in this case is truly operating as a machine. In every aspect, as described by Bob, has a set way of being handled. The restaurant itself is even laid out to be uniform in all respects. Starting at the counter when the are greeted by an employee, you begin to notice that they all start off asking the same questions at the beginning of the order and at the end. The food is prepared in the same way every time. Employees are designated to certain roles and that is all they do. They handle one task and take it to completion and then start it again. Drinks are poured with the same amount of ice in the cup and condiments are added to sandwiches in equal amounts every time. There is very little, if any deviation from the out lined plan. Even managers have a set task for each day of the year. McDonald's has created a machine and makes sure its employees are trained properly and well oiled (sorry about the pun).
McDonald's success comes from many different aspects, but the ability to provide a product that is the same no matter where you are is the biggest one. Their ability to recreate the same product in any location using the "machine" they have created has allowed them to become a staple in most cultures. People in the United States or, in this instance, Canada can travel to any McDonald's and know they will receive the same quality product they received at home. As the case study states, "After all, we don't know where else to go, or what their food's like." McDonald's has created a name brand that will follow them wherever they go, and has achieved a status of iconic with its golden arches and fast food.
Public service organizations have many different aspects to them and require different people and personalities to run them. When you look at a local government, you see multiple aspects that mirror the McDonald's operations. Public Works is one side where this is the case. Employees are trained from the ground up learning one skill set before moving on to another. As they succeed, they are given more and more responsibility. They are given a set of standard operating procedures that explain how a job is suppose to be done and they very rarely deviate from that set of procedures. Requests from citizens are usually responded with set answers that usually never deviate from what has been established in guidelines and protocols. The opposite is true when looking at the administrative level of a small community. The head administrator is allowed to deviate from the plan and make suggestions and change the plan when needed. He looks into citizens requests and bends rules to fit the individual situation. He plays more to the social aspect of making the citizens happy with the outcome.
In my opinion, there is some need to have set standards and regulations in place to make sure things are completed correctly, but I do understand that employees need to have a self-satisfying feel about their job if they are to perform at their highest potential. I do not think that treating employees like they are cogs in a machine will allow them to reach their full potential and it would not benefit the organization to have people working below their potential. Too many times people settle and unfortunately it is because the system pushes them to do so. The organization need to strive to make employees want to be better so they are better employees and public servants.
How is the organization you work for like or not like a machine? Do you think a public organization could be successful running as just a machine or do they need other aspects to fill the need of the citizens? How many successful companies are run like this?
The organization i worked for offer an after school program at 9 different school sites of the 35 schools in the district. I was the director of one of the sites. Some sites had more staff because the enrollment ratio requirements were more while others had less but the four core programs were the same as well as the time of implementation of service which was - snack, power hour for home work help, followed by two enrichment.
ReplyDeleteThis organization did not operate as a machine because site directors could be as creative and resourceful as they want to. As stated in the above scenario, "In my opinion, there is some need to have set standards and regulations in place to make sure things are completed correctly, but I do understand that employees need to have a self-satisfying feel about their job if they are to perform at their highest potential". This was exactly the case with this organization. There were some set procedures, for example, all documentation and administrative duties were the same; however, too many things were bent and allowed for some sites that was not allowed for others. The consistency changed dramatically from top down as well as across the line. This created some issues and concerns. Some standard operating procedures should have remained in place so there would be little conflict and confusion. Maybe moving more closely to the machine in some ways (particularly reporting and administrative duties) would have helped bring more clarity and structure to the organization which is presently failing.
"Do you think a public organization could be successful running as just a machine or do they need other aspects to fill the need of the citizens?" This is a thought provoking question to me. I think some public organization as it relates to human services, youth services and child welfare strive to run as a machine in order to follow some strict guide lines for offering service in the same way to all clients; however, i do not think it is the agency as a whole that operates as a machine like the McDonalds example above but i think individuals inside of government agencies adopt either the "machine" attitude as they treat all people, clienteles and cases the same or they sometimes deviate, bend rules to fit individual situations and often feel happier with the outcome of assisting people by treating people like people than treating people by case numbers and situations.
In comparing my previous job where i worked for 6+ years to a program like the Girl Scouts I sense balance within the Girl Scouts organization . It appears Girls Scouts have steadfastly maintained a uniformed consistent "by the book" manner. One example is, they still say the same pledge i said 30 years ago. The Girls Scouts have operated in the basic same way for many years, however, creativity has grown and ideas are fresh as technology and the needs of families have changed but they have specific ways they offer their service which they have not deviated from.
With this said, in some organizations it does not have to be either machine or overly flexible because the machine can turn people into ridge robotic androids with no freedom to think (like fast food chains) and be creative while having too many different ways of doing things can cause confusion due to the many different needs, personalities and background(like my previous job). There should be a balance.
I am not sure if i understand the last question about how many successful companies are run a certain way. There are millions of companies in American. I'm not sure how companies operate but I'm sure there are hundreds of successful chains (since McDonald's was used) that operate in a "machine" manner because it is highly necessary. There are also hundreds of other public services that successful operate with balance and flexibility.
(Respondent)
ReplyDeleteI work in a bureaucracy, with division of roles, people selected on the basis of technical qualifications, (except potentially in patronage cases) and serving in career positions. The only aspect that I cannot see is routinization of tasks, other than when my boss signs a timesheet or something like that. That is likely a function of being in the General Counsel’s office: you get a good birds-eye view of the whole agency, but program-specific questions arising in defense of a lawsuit must be deferred to the appropriate program administrator. The exact metrics of performance are unclear, but again, it is likely because of my placement. We do have a quality control department, so I know they are there. Taylor would be proud, because many changes or eliminations of programs occur following a quality control analysis.
I do see a disconnect from work mentioned in the red tape article quite often. For example, one employee decided to order equipment he knew would not work with a particular computer system because he felt he was not in control of the situation and ultimately did not care if the state wasted money. He had been pestered on it too long and finally just caved.
One question I have is this: so far it seems we all agree that government agencies cannot act solely in the mechanistic way. There must be some discretion, some flexibility to deal with the humans that interact with the organization on a regular basis. But, as an attorney, the problem is always where to draw the line so as to avoid unintended consequences or applications. How do government agencies balance the need to apply their rules, regulations and programs equally to all consumers with the need to have some adaptability, but not set too bold a precedent?
Fayol’s principles bring an interesting application in my case. I have not found unity of command—there is a General Counsel and a Deputy General Counsel; there may be one program administrator and several deputies. With respect to the Deputy Program Administrators, I am led to believe each is supposed to have areas of focus, but it is not clear that the areas of focus are by choice or by necessity. In any event, they all have to interact to develop a solution because of the overlapping purposes of a program. For the GC’s office, we send things back and forth all the time because if you have five lawyers in the room, there are ten opinions. Can a bureaucracy ever truly have unity of command at the administrator level? Span of control is relatively acceptable in the GC’s office—eight or nine people reporting to one general counsel, so she is effectively able to manage, but as our role is to advise the client, we often end up taking orders from all over the agency. The exception principle applies especially for me now as there is so much I am still learning, so I often get the routine questions while the GC and DGC get the juicy questions.
Simon’s Administrative Man concept fits very nicely with the newsroom article. At the beginning, the reporters at the Times successfully followed Thomas’ new policy of reporting more enterprise news. (They did not know what their self interest was at the time). But then they saw that they needed to continue doing beat reporting to get the enterprise leads and continue building relationships. An optimal solution in a changing industry such as news may be to go to harder news---enterprise journalism, but because of the realities of news gathering, they settle for an adequate solution which includes reporting a significant amount of run-of-the-mill stories. Have you seen settling for an adequate solution over an optimal one where you work? Why did this happen? This is a common phenomenon in state agencies because of the different levels of approval and input required to implement a policy.
As rightly stated by previous contributors, an organization cannot be entirely run as a machine. The mechanical theory of organizations aims at optimizing and achieving the mission of the organization with less time and redundancy. The theory however tends to neglect or place less emphasis on the humanistic element. The human participants in an organization play a key part in administering routine tasks that are needed to achieve the goals. There should therefore be a relative balance between machinery and humans. However this is a relative standing as it still remains uncertain where to draw the line between the two.
ReplyDeleteCustomer service entities such as McDonald's are more efficiently run in a machine-like manner because as a fast food or restaurant, there are set recipes and gourmet delicacies that are particular to each of them. In order for McDonald's to maintain its high clientele and reputation, it is necessary to maintain standards and always deliver the buns and burgers perfectly and with the right amount of condiments. This can only be achieved through a timed grilling machine bun toaster and also a "follow-the-letter" manual.
I work in a public university and it is obvious that the administration of a university cannot be run as any McDonald's store. Some departments such as Admissions and Financial Aid are governed by a pre-existing set of criteria such as the minimum number of credit one needs to have from high school before one can be admitted. In addition, each academic program has its specific program requirements that differ from one another but these requirements remain the same within one department. This is similar to a machine-like branch of the organization because the data presented by applicants is entered into a database that checks for all these specifications and filters the list of admitted students from the unqualified. However, admissions requirements are not static as the University Senate which is the highest academic governing body may deem it necessary to augment these requirements when the need arises in order to maintain standards and quality assurance.
The University of The Gambia was established in 1999 with specific admission requirements. These requirements were augmented due to the growing popularity of higher education in 2010 as the number of qualified students grew more than the capacity of the university to ensure effective instruction. This depicts the fact that it is highly necessary to have a set of rules and regulations that will govern the participants in an organization as it will minimize precedence and uneven division of labor but there is also a great need to balance the ratio of rigidity to reality.
As participants and employees in an organization, there is is an inextricable link with one another and no one participant can perform without the other. Such is the metaphoric nature of an organization compared to a machine. The coherent assembling and functioning of the different departments and units in the organization is what yields the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization and such is the function of a machine. Organizations however comprise of human beings as well as computers therefore each of these have to be put into consideration and at the right time which is highly determined by the nature and purpose of that organization.
(Responder)
ReplyDeleteMcDonalds is like a machine in almost every way. This is one of the biggest factors in their success. Any visit to a McDonalds will be basically the same. By documenting every minute detail of how every item should be made, guarantees the food will look and taste the same at every location. To me, this should be done with every franchise chain. There is still flexibility in the machine, as customers are allowed to special order their food.
In some ways, public service organizations should operate like McDonalds. This would allow the organization to be efficient and everyone would get the same treatment. The more efficient an organization is, the lower it will cost to run. I am sure we all deal with the same situation of rising costs and reduced funding. Taxpayers will appreciate streamlining our processes because it will create lower cost and quicker service. I know this cannot apply to all public organizations. As Eric mentioned, Public Works may be a good example of an organization that can run as a machine. The Wisconsin DOT has standard specifications, standard detail drawings and a facilities development manual that are used to give a step by step detail of every process involved with designing and constructing public works projects in Wisconsin. My community has adopted these specs as our own.
My community/employer has many policies and procedures that are in place to help improve efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. All of these make the organization machine like. For example, there are manuals for our annual fire hydrant flushing program. These manuals give an order in which to flush hydrants, how much to open each hydrant and even how long each hydrant should be flushed. Even with all these in place, the organization does not run like a machine. There is too much red tape. While reading the article Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers?, I could not help but relate the reading to my organization. I have found that all these policies (centralized decision-making) and the different ways they are enforced, has led to horrible employee morale (reduced organizational commitment and job satisfaction).
This case illustrates how predictability and the elimination of uncertainty are fundamental to the nature of the product and how McDonalds has devised a highly effective mechanical system for organizing production. As such, responsibility for the organization of work rests with managers and system designers at McDonald's head office, not with the workers. Restaurant employees are solely concerned with the implementation of predefined codes, procedures, and responsibilities. Essentially, there is a split between brain and hand.
ReplyDeleteWith that beings said, I want you to consider the nature of the product or service provided by your organizations. How well does this model fit? As a professional public servant, are you training for a strictly instrumental or technical role? Is there a split (a wall or dichotomy) between politics and administration? Are we only training to be experts in execution or predetermined ends? Or, do we play a more constitutive role where we have some responsibility to build public value as well? Do we not share the space between universal principles and particularistic concerns with politicians?
In other words, as professional public servants can we simply be the hands and allow politicians to serve as the brains? Or, does the nature of our product or service demand more of us? What are the ethical implications of accepting a strictly instrumental role for bureaucracy?
Not to mention, year in and year out in a strictly instrumental role would have a devastating impact on public service motivation.
(Searcher)
ReplyDeleteIn the current Federal funding climate within which I work, there is a constant emphasis on efficiency and on doing 'more with less.' Fine-tuning of processes has become paramount and eliminating unnecessary steps that utilize scarce resources has become a top priority. In this way, it seems that the goal is to make government function not only as a machine, but as the most efficient machine with the least number of parts. Standard operating procedures and best practices have become a managerial focus, and there is an increased desire to standardize processes across program offices and locations. This is perceived to be advantageous to the agency, as it enables processes to take place in a routine method. However, it is not necessarily advantageous to employees. The article linked below discusses the ill emotional and physical health effects that may occur when employees perceive themselves as 'cogs within a machine' and work becomes too routinized and monotonous. Even if employees have some duties that are part of routine processes, for employee morale and health to be maintained at a high level, employees must feel that they make meaningful contributions and that they can self-direct and continue to learn; that is, that they can be 'the brains' in some situations rather than just 'the hands.'
Additionally, as an employee in an agency that interfaces a great deal with the public (HUD), I have seen through the nature of my work that my agency's product and service demands more than just routinized processes. Each housing authority has different needs, and it is essential that employees be able to work with them to provide individualized solutions to problems, provided those solutions fit within the framework of applicable statutes and regulations. Dealing with other agency employees, housing authority employees, tenants, and citizens at large all require different styles of communication and problem-solving strategies. The insertion of the 'human element' makes a strictly bureaucratic approach an improper method with which to approach our work.
http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/bureaucratic-organizations-are-bad-for-our-health#.Uin3ddKkq-Y
(Searcher)
ReplyDeleteAs a sidenote, it is also interesting to consider the evolving nature of government bureaucracy as it relates to generational differences in the workforce. Within my agency, there have sometimes been tensions as members of Generation X and Millenials enter the workforce and begin to ascend through the ranks due to differing priorities and feelings regarding work and satisfaction. These differing priorities often intersect with the concept of the bureaucratic machine, as younger employees tend to advocate for cross-program collaboration, flexible work responsibilities that allow time for projects of interest, and a desire to meaningfully participate in agency priority development. However, this tension can give way to collaboration across generations and has the potential to lead to new solutions for long-standing problems.
The below article discusses members of Generation X in government service and the values they are attempting to employ within their organizations, particularly meaningful engagement and participation by employees and the public.
http://www.governing.com/topics/mgmt/gov-how-generation-x-shaping-government.html
I will attempt to tackle this from the approach of my Public Works Department. At this level of Public service, I believe the average worker should operate as a machine/instrument. They have only been trained on how to do a finite number of tasks in a limited number of ways. There has to be workers who are there simply to get the job done. The average worker does not have the technical background to make an informed decision on the proper method in every situation. Often times, I hear "that's not the way we have done it in the past." Some situations are unique and need some thought put into them.
ReplyDeleteManagers cannot operate as a machine. They need to be the ones to make the decision on what type of repair or what method to use to tackle a problem. Often times, the decision is tied to available budgets. The ground level worker will know the budget detail.
Sitting back and being only the hands can have a big impact on public service motivation. It can be rewarding if the "brain" is making good sound decisions, but more often it is demoralizing due to bad management. In my organization, many of the issues come from these bad management decisions, not the policies and procedures set in place to guide us.
It is not ethical for managers to work as machines. Every decision should consider fairness, efficiency, effectiveness, cost and the public trust. Mechanistic ways cannot account for all of these principals.
I want to take a moment an piggyback off Katie's article about organizational design principles. We see there that people working within organizational cultures fostering, among other things, a continued emphasis on learning and mu respect, report a higher level of satisfaction with their work. Why is that? They genuinely feel a valued portion of the team. They feel like what they're doing is meaningful work that makes a difference at the end of the day. As the article cited below (from the same site Katie pulled hers) puts it "rather than pushing on people as if they are inanimate objects subject to Newton’s laws of motion, we’ll be more successful if we use an approach that encourages people to willingly do what we want. Rather than tell them what to do, we should ask them.
ReplyDeleteSince questions aren’t assertions, they don’t run up against cognitive dissonance reduction. We’re forced to fit the issue they raise into our worldview so that we can respond. And when a decision or action comes from us, our self-esteem is tied into making it successful.
Instead of telling people how they’re doing, we should ask them. By using questions, we should enable them to honestly reflect on their performance. If corrective action is required, it should be self-generated. GE found that active participation in the review process, starting with an employee self-appraisal, improved performance significantly."
http://iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/leading-minds-instead-of-managing-behaviour#.UiqAL9J4yVo
I think it may be entirely possible for certain levels of bureaucracy could function as a machine if their goal is to produce the same product every time without deviation (e.g. the dmv or FOID review), but in general the question of how an organization should operate is defined by what the people at the top determine greatness to be for that entity, as Collins puts it.
(Responder)
ReplyDeleteI found the first article Katie posted very interesting. One quote from the article that really stood out was: "The critical feature of both types is that responsibility for coordination and control is located at least one level above the people doing the work. This appears to be the cause of individual frustration, shame, humiliation, anger and contempt." I see this every day. I believe these feelings come from the past poor management decisions and workers with a sense of entitlement. Many workers in my organization feel they could do a better job than management, while failing to do their own work.
I like the article because it not only offers background on why the mechanistic approach is unhealth, but offers a solution to fix the problem. The Open Systems Theory is discussed as a potential solution. This theory is one of the theories discussed in our next reading on the organism metaphor. I don't fully agree witht this theory but it has some benefits.
Workers should not have to be asked to do their work or be their own bosses. I think a lot of workers would take advantage of this and be less productive. Some one needs to guide them and see that work is being done. Worker input is important, but the management should decide if the input will prove the work being done.
I believe if you are unhappy with your job, find a new one.
Katie's article on Bureaucracy and the Open Systems Theory is quite interesting and i tend to agree with Bill in the fact that it is unhealthy to fully adopt the theory in an organization. Bureaucracy, as politically correct as it may sound, needs to be present in some degree to ensure efficiency, accountability and positive results among workers in their strive towards achieving the ultimate goals of their organizations.
ReplyDeleteIf people are allowed to be their own bosses and given the liberty to "vary their to avoid boredom and fatigue" then that may become a problem because there will be nobody to draw the line between achieving self confidence and being obnoxious. This is likely to result in a deviation from the main scope of work and goals of the organization due to a diverse set of personal goals.
In addition, it is important to bear in mind that too much liberty cannot be given to individual workers as team role might be the best approach. A key role of a workers in an organization is to coordinate their tasks and collaborate with their bosses towards achieving the organizational goals rather than personal.
I agree with my classmates that both approaches are necessary within organizations, particularly within the public and governmental sectors. There are some necessary processes that must be completed in a standard method and in a timely fashion. For these sorts of tasks, a bureaucratic approach is the most efficient method by which to accomplish these tasks. However, for larger policy questions and for job functions that involve direct service to consumers, an open systems approach is often more effective. In this way, employees can use their skills to come up with unique solutions to unique problems and, in doing so, can continue to develop their skills sets and talents through their work. I believe that, for a public organization to accomplish all of its necessary functions, there needs to be a balance between the approaches and that each needs to be utilized as appropriate.
ReplyDeleteGrade: 17 Points
ReplyDeleteHello group, you did a good job of capturing the notion that mechanical views are useful in the appropriate situation, but cannot be the only tool in our toolkit. Searchers you need to get your materials posted earlier and then engage in the conversation and help others see how the material your provided is relevant.
See the difference on the Blogger Description handout between 17 points and 20 ... Group members do not let your group down.