Practical Issues in Organising Functions

Inquiry

Large organizations need to handle a multiplicity of functions without inappropriate simplification. Ideally, every function should be managed by roles in four Levels—but no more. While the needed activities are usually fairly obvious, there are usually issues in defining functions and designing roles to ensure each is effectively managed. So investigation is required.

The structuring of a function will depend upon pressures like the number of staff necessarily employed, centrality and complexity of the function, and aspirations for the function like the degree of development or innovation desired. The highest level role within any function determines the influence that can be exerted within the organization. So maximum influence occurs with a role at g4.

If roles in higher Levels are ignored, then the competence and contribution of the function can be expected to decline due to poor recruitment and falling behind the times. There are usually also morale problems because staff are liable to feel a lack of respect, disconnection or inadequate support.

Structures

The higher Levels in the function must be able to appreciate all its issues and be in touch with disciplinary developments in the wider world, otherwise the g4 work will not get done. Phoney accountability arrangements occur when someone from outside the function (perhaps not even conversant with it) is put in charge. The results will inevitably be unsatisfactory.
ClosedExample: Paramedical Professionals

Health services contain a variety of quite distinct paramedical professions, each with its own educational institutions: e.g. speech therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers, audiologists, laboratory technicians. A hospital must decide how each of these functions is to be managed.

It may be realistic to have all four levels of functional management in one or two cases, but never in all cases. Common options include: •assigning the higher level work to a medical professional, •merging professions at higher level(s).

However, if the assigned g4 manager does not properly appreciate the specialist work, functional development will be perfunctory. As a result, the profession will stagnate, with a high likelihood of deteriorating quality and faltering recruitment.

As in the above example, it is often possible to merge higher level duties for similar functions. This is particularly common and appropriate with Specialist Action functions.
ClosedExample: Hotel Services

Some disciplines or departments that superficially seem to be simple unified functions are actually combinations of specialist functions.
ClosedExamples

Outlooks

Managers at the same level of work may be in roles within different types of function. This is especially noticeable at WL4, which is common to all functions. The types generate different outlooks on organizational work that can lead to clashes if not appreciated.

ClosedExample: UK Hospitals

The Unit Management Team in the UK's NHS in the 1980s often requisitely contained a WL4-Unit General Manager (UGM), a WL4-Finance Director (FD), a WL4-Medical Director (MD), and a WL4-Director of Nursing Services (DNS).

The UGM does what they are told in the Unit in the manner prescribed, and so can focus on Unit operations without concern for their own general management function.

The DNS, at the other extreme heading up a specialist action function, carries many diverse functional responsibilities within the Unit including: •for the nature of nursing, •for education and training, •for recruitment of nurses, •for meeting evolving legal requirements, •for integration of nursing research, •for provision of nurse management.

The FD, in a specialist system function, controls the management accountants and is closest in spirit to the UGM but with a higher sense of expertise.

While the MD, working in a specialist assessment function, does not line-manage WL3-medical specialists, there is a responsibility to look systematically at how medical services across the Unit can be developed.

ClosedCf. Limits of Jaquesian Doctrine.

If all WL4-managers operate with a common construction of reality (or «level of abstraction») as Jaquesian doctrine proposes, disputes can be easily viewed as inappropriately personal or political. However, it is evident from the present framework that, despite a fundamental commonality of perception, conflicts may naturally arise because:

  • each type of function brings a significantly different outlook to WL4 work,
  • functional responsibilities are genuine and not to be dismissed,
  • WL4 roles differ in the amount of control exerted on functional staff according to the type of function.

Discussion that recognizes these issues is liable to lead to a more productive resolution.

Harmonization

There is a common distrust of functional management because it usually divides up the organization in ways that do not directly align with the mission or client/customer needs. Silos and mini-empires are additional dangers. However, integration of efforts across functions should be addressed by the Pentads that follow and by attention to the management culture: and not by weakening or devaluing competence.

Keeping the focus on types of functions, the myth that there must be a unity of command, beloved of power-centric bosses, is untenable where there are specialized activities. Competence depends on expertise and organizations depend on competent professionals: but how to harmonize their inputs?

Harmonization can be primarily ensured via sensible dual influence authority relations: e.g. the immediate priorities and task performance of a specialist subordinate can be under the control of the general manager or a coordinator, while technical methods and appraisal of competence remain a matter for the specialist superior.

There are other mechanisms that ensure smooth progress, especially coordination. So coordinators often lead cross-functional teams in handling complex projects; and coordinating authority may be assigned to one manager in a specific facility. Multi-disciplinary teams, with the lead profession providing coordination, are commonly used to integrate contributions in case-handling e.g. within health care and social care.

Next Step

If improvement-G3 involves anything new, it is necessary to ensure access to the required expertise. Such expertise must be standardized and developed within functions-G4 that are fully integrated into the organization.

However, improvement-G3 delivers results, not success; and functions-G4 only provide for competence, not organizational effectiveness and success. The criterion to be used here is the mission. Achievements must be channeled and organised via goals that meet the ambitions of those in general management who are responsible for the mission.

Originally posted: 19-Mar-2014