3 ms·
The authors don’t do enough to sell the basic org design framework well. Then they use this (somewhat weak) framework to analyze Napolean’s org design. Makes it
by a_d 8y ago
The authors don’t do enough to sell the basic org design framework well. Then they use this (somewhat weak) framework to analyze Napolean’s org design. Makes it a v confusing paper. (Also, the hero worship throughout the paper makes it seem like everything Neapolean did, fits their beautiful theory. Too much fitting going on :))
“Strategy should utilize the five basic principles of organizational design: division of labor, unity of command, authority and responsibility, spans of control, and contingency factors.”
What!? No one designs orgs like this. Orgs are designed around:
A) “Axis of Excellence” (Eg if you want functional excellence in your org - ie the best salesperson to lead sales, the best marketer to lead marketing - then you organize around functions likes Sales, Marketing, Engineeing etc). OR,
B) “Max{Collaborative Output} and Min{Communication Overhead}” needs - Eg if people across functions need to collaborate closely to produce a business result then one create those units accordingly - they could be line of business units ( eg textile: spinning, packaging etc) or geo-based units.
Looking at the framework they use makes me wonder what useless theories are being taught in MBA schools :-)
The most interesting bit in the paper is about messaging. Seems like Napoleon invented HipChat/Slack of his day to make his orgs work more smoothly. That was quite cool!
“Napoleon utilized the existing technology of the Chappe’s semaphore telegraph to improve his message traffic. He maximized its potential by constructing towers across Europe creating a communications web that would cover his expanding empire (Elting, 1988). When messages were too long or not as important to use Chappe’s telegraph, Napoleon relied on the European postal system. He made improvements by creating an express courier service. Messages were carried in a lock box with a logbook that showed the date and time of arrivals and departures of couriers to each post house”
- azernik 8y agoYour critique of the analytical framework is based on the assumption that this is a business school paper. It isn't. It's from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, and uses specifically military terminology and design considerations. In military organizational design, "unity of command" [1] is absolutely a central tenet, given the need for precise coordination and the high costs of momentary lapses thereof; "authority and responsibility" is a closely related concept, since unity of authority without responsibility, or unity of responsibility without authority, produces all kinds of perverse organizational incentives. "Contingency factors" [2] are also an organizational principle especially important to military operations given the time-sensitive nature of their activities and the adversarial nature of their obstacles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_command [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_theory
- truthwhisperer 8y agoDisagree. It's a thesis to fulfil the requirements of Master of Science. Doesn't' really matter if business school, tech school or whatever. If you want to qualify yourself as a Master of Science do it. Not to summarise other literature or give your opinion. Then you should work for the NYT
- marktangotango 8y agoSome notable people ended up on the faculty there iirc Gary Kildall (cp/m) and Richard Hamming for example.
- tw1010 8y agoI don't see why you'd need to minimize communication overhead when maximizing collaborative output is already stated as an explicit goal. I'd think the only reason to minimize the former is to make it easier to maximize the latter, in which case the former would be redundant. A rude interpretation is that the dual goals are there for the self-serving reason that you maybe don't like to talk to people.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- marktangotango 8y ago“Don’t like to talk to people” is probably isomorphic to; unable to communicate securely or reliably ie both characteristics of military operations.