case study on organizational design with solution

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

OrganizationalDesign →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

Featured Content

Cost Management

Artificial Intelligence

Build for the Future

• © 2023 Boston Consulting Group
• Terms of Use
• Site Search Search

Related Expertise: People Strategy , Organization Design , Organizational Culture

A New Approach to Organization Design

Smart design for performance.

April 05, 2016  By  Peter Tollman ,  Andrew Toma ,  Fabrice Roghé ,  Yves Morieux ,  Steve Maaseide ,  Eddy Tamboto , and  JinK Koike

In a time of economic turbulence, disruptive technology, globalization, and unprecedentedly fierce competition, the priority concern for many business leaders is to adapt to the changing conditions in order to boost their company’s performance. For that purpose, they frequently turn to organization design for help . By driving a thorough organizational review and redesign, company leaders can change the trajectory of their business.

Corporate reorganization is certainly in vogue. In a survey conducted by The Boston Consulting Group, almost 80% of respondent companies reported under-going a recent reorganization exercise—in about half of those cases, a large-scale, enterprise-wide reorganization initiative.

If only it were that easy. The results have been disappointing: survey respondents rated fewer than half of the reorganization efforts as successful. The underlying reason for such a low success rate: all too often, the companies’ leaders relied on organizational frameworks that have become outmoded and ineffective in today’s business environment. (See “The Traditional Approaches: Hard and Soft.”)

THE TRADITIONAL APPROACHES: HARD AND SOFT

In grappling with organization design, company executives tend to draw on two venerable approaches, which can be characterized as the “hard” approach and the “soft” approach.

The hard approach can be traced back more than a century to the pioneering work of Frederick W. Taylor on the subject of scientific management. The approach rests on two broad assumptions: first, that performance is affected directly and crucially by structures, processes, systems, and financial rewards; second, that people’s behavior is something to be controlled —through structures, processes, and systems and by offering financial incentives based on performance metrics.

Because performance levels often seemed curiously resistant to the hard approach and the level of control achieved was limited, organizational theorists began supplementing it with the soft approach. This approach involves encouraging positive attitudes and interactions among the workforce by means of team-building activities, workshops emphasizing values, and other “people initiatives.” It can be traced to the work of Elton Mayo in the 1920s and the subsequent human relations school of management. The new thinking was, very roughly, as follows: performance is heavily influenced by interpersonal relationships, which are largely determined by mind-sets, which can be changed—not by financial incentives but by improved communication and emotional and social reassurance. The underlying purpose here, as with the hard approach, is control. The main difference is that the mechanism used to achieve it is psychological rather than economic.

Both approaches underplay the importance of individual autonomy and rationality . First, people are less likely to behave in the way we want if coerced or manipulated into such behavior than they are if the choice is their own. (And in any case, the kind of work they now generally do is not really amenable to control: in a knowledge economy, workers need to apply their own judgment rather than simply follow a set of rules.) Second, workers—being rational—act in their perceived own best interests. So, the modern approach to organization design should not be to seek control but rather to create the right context for the workforce, by aligning their own best interests with the mission of the organization. Once that context is suitably conducive, the workers will change their behavior of their own accord and will act together, as a team, to carry out the organization’s mission.

(This account is adapted from the book Six Simple Rules: How to Manage Complexity without Getting Complicated , by Yves Morieux and Peter Tollman, Harvard Business Review Press, 2014.)

A Call to Action

The business world of the early 21st century is radically different from that of the early 20th century, in two key respects.

First, organizations now have to operate in a vastly more complex environment—one of globalization, hypercompetition, revolutionary technologies, and elaborate regulation. Such complexity implies an increased number of performance requirements for companies (for instance, to satisfy customer needs, address competitive pressures, or comply with the ever-increasing labyrinth of regulation). If you then assign to each requirement its own structural solution (which is the essence of the “hard approach,” described in the sidebar) you end up with an extremely complicated and unwieldy organization.

Second, in most companies the nature of work has changed: from algorithmic work—that is, clerical or manual labor— to knowledge or heuristic work 1 1 Daniel H. Pink, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us , Riverhead Books, 2011. Notes: 1 Daniel H. Pink, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us , Riverhead Books, 2011. . Knowledge workers differ from clerical or manual workers in that their role is not merely to follow rules and perform specific tasks but also to use their own initiative to further the organization’s mission. They have to interpret the rules, adjust to the changing realities, and make trade-offs among conflicting requirements in order to arrive at the optimal solution.

All of that requires judgment. Judgment in turn involves creativity and full engagement on the part of the workforce. For algorithmic work (and in the hard approach to organization design), variation is discouraged and minimized—people need to follow the rules. Knowledge work and creative engagement, however, actually embrace variation and flourish in proportion. What’s more, heuristic workers on the front line, in order to make the most reliable and creative judgments possible, must master and monitor local conditions. So, in this respect, they are now the experts: they know more about this aspect of the trade-offs than their superiors do and, accordingly, need greater autonomy and empowerment.

If reorganization efforts continue to overlook these two major changes in the world of work, they will continue to fail. A new approach is needed, one that is better suited to the realities of the world in which companies now operate. BCG has developed such an approach, called Smart Design for Performance—or just Smart Design—drawing on the principles of Smart Simplicity. (See “Smart Design, Smart Simplicity.”) The approach has been battle tested and has shown great success in raising company performance, mastering complexity, and enhancing employee engagement.

SMART DESIGN, SMART SIMPLICITY

Smart Design is based on BCG’s Smart Simplicity model 2 of how to design organizations for performance. Two of the framework’s key tenets are as follows:

A company’s performance is a direct consequence of its people’s behavior, which in turn is a response to the contexts in which these people find themselves. The performance of any organization is driven by the behaviors of the individuals in that organization: the decisions they make, the activities they undertake, and their interactions. These behaviors are rational 3 —a rational reaction to a particular situation; they are not “hyperrational,” as the behaviors of a computer algorithm might be. Rather, they represent the individuals’ perceived best strategy in the situation. To change these behaviors, and hence raise the organization’s performance level, you have to make a new set of behaviors rational; to do that, you have to change the situation, or context.

The new context must encourage cooperation. Company performance improves strongly when organizations raise the level of cooperation among the individual actors and align individual goals more closely with company goals. Cooperation, in this sense, occurs when one individual takes action to improve the performance of another; it brings synergy, such that everyone’s efforts combine in the most effective way and benefit the whole group. Cooperation is therefore the essence of teamwork; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The Basis of a New Approach

A holistic view of organization design would encompass numerous components: structural elements, roles and responsibilities, individual talent, and enabling mechanisms such as core enterprise decision-making processes, performance management, and talent management. These are the key levers for organizational change, and they are obviously crucial—but their relevance is indirect. To change a company’s performance is to change what happens in the company. And what happens in a company is not directly a matter of organizational levers (such as structures, processes, and systems) but one of behavior —that is, what people do: how they act, interact, and make decisions. Workforce behavior is what determines company performance.

All of the various organizational levers act together to affect behavior, and that in turn affects company performance. But the traditional approaches assume, incorrectly and damagingly, that the organizational levers act directly and proportionately on company performance. (See Exhibit 1.)

The new approach to redesigning an organization , far more appropriate for the new business environment, has behavior at its core. It involves identifying and explaining the current behaviors of the workforce, defining the desired behaviors—those that would improve company performance—and generating the new behaviors by creating contexts that are conducive to them.

What’s So Smart About Smart Design?

BCG’s Smart Design approach involves three main steps—the why, what, and how (see Exhibit 2):

• Define the purpose of the reorganization (the why).
• Determine the behaviors that will support that purpose and design the organization in such a way as to promote those behaviors, using a broad range of design elements (the what).
• Make it happen (the how).

Define the Purpose of the Reorganization

By redesigning the organization, your company can resolve many stubborn issues of strategy and execution. But before embarking on the redesign, make sure to identify clearly the company’s current performance shortfall (that is, the gap between the company’s current performance and its target performance) and hence the precise aims of the reorganization effort—with regard to competitive advantage, strategic priorities, or organizational pain points.

There are various ways to approach such an assessment. (For a summary of one of them, see “BCG’s Complicatedness Survey.”)

BCG’S COMPLICATEDNESS SURVEY

Organizations today operate in an environment of unprecedented complexity, owing to factors such as competitive intensity, globalization, high technology, tighter regulation, and customer empowerment.

But that does not mean that the organizations themselves have to be characterized by complicatedness —by having needless KPIs or excessive managerial layers, for example. Complicatedness is a consequence of misguided organization design. Whereas complexity can be a source of advantage if managed effectively, complicatedness impairs the functioning of an organization by restricting management’s agility and reducing the workforce’s engagement.

BCG has developed a complicatedness survey for client organizations. The online survey contains a standardized set of questions to gauge not just the overall level of complicatedness in an organization but also the specific level of each of seven context dimensions. And it captures not just the facts but—almost equally important—the beliefs or perceptions of key stakeholders. By highlighting the organizational pain points in this way, the survey helps to identify the aspects that would most benefit from redesign. (See the exhibit below.)

Determine the Target Behaviors and Design the Organization Accordingly

In this second step, you define the behaviors required to achieve the purpose. That will, in turn, lead to a set of design principles to be used for guidance as you shape the four key design elements, which are the building blocks for producing the desired behaviors. These elements are organizational structure, roles and responsibilities, individual talent, and organizational enablers. Note that they affect one another in many ways, and they act in combination to alter the context for individuals and encourage behaviors that drive high performance. So, instead of dealing with each of the four elements independently, you need to consider them jointly and align them.

Organizational Structure. Organizational structure refers to the hierarchy of management reporting—who reports to whom with regard to executing the strategy. These reporting lines establish the organization’s geometry: the spans of control and the number of layers.

Organizational structure can affect behavior profoundly. That is because the reporting relationship is an important basis of power: a line manager has power over his or her subordinates by virtue of being able to influence things that matter to them—notably, their assignments, remuneration, and career paths. (See “Power and Related Concepts.”)

POWER AND RELATED CONCEPTS

In any team or company, the work done by one person affects the ability of others to do what they have to do. That creates interdependencies. And interdependencies create a need for cooperation.

Cooperation is the essence of teamwork: it involves more than just collaboration and coordination; it consists of behavior by individuals that increases the effectiveness of a group in pursuit of a shared goal. When you as an individual cooperate, you take into account—in your decisions and your actions—the needs and situations of your colleagues, rather than simply pursuing your own preferences.

Cooperation is not as easy as it sounds, nor as common. Don’t assume that it happens automatically in your organization. Individuals are, by nature, self-interested and value their autonomy, so they often resist cooperation, because it requires a personal sacrifice, or adjustment cost, from them. This adjustment cost might be professional, emotional, reputational, or, of course, financial.

If an individual avoids cooperating by refusing to make the adjustment cost, then the cost is incurred elsewhere—by others in the team or organization (in the form of underperformance, perhaps), or by the team or organization as a whole (in the form of lower productivity), or by people external to the organization—such as customers (through defects, delays, or higher prices) or shareholders (through lower returns).

An important way to secure cooperation within a group is for the group leader to exercise leadership (that means getting people to do things that they wouldn’t do spontaneously) and for that purpose, he or she needs appropriate power (power rather than just status).

Power can be defined as influence over things that are important to others: it is not necessarily correlated to one’s position in the hierarchy. A line manager coordinating a large project, for example, will have power over direct reports (via influence over their salaries or promotion prospects) but not necessarily over nondirect reports, and so might be unable to secure cooperation among them—a sure sign of a dysfunctional organization and the need for an organization redesign or at least an adjustment.

The overall architecture of a company tends to reflect the company’s priorities. If the priority is functional excellence, for instance, then the company will usually be organized functionally; if the priority is customer intimacy, then the company will likely be structured according to customer type.

The problem is that almost all companies need to address multiple, often conflicting, priorities in order to be competitive in today’s environment. For example, in a functional organization, the emphasis might still be on serving customers or on organizing optimally to develop new products. Structure alone is not the answer. If a company neglects other ways of influencing behavior, and concentrates on making multidimensional or overly sophisticated structural changes (or just continues to add new structures) in order to cater to its conflicting priorities, the result is complicatedness and extra bureaucracy. Which is where Smart Design comes to the rescue.

Another way that organizational structure affects behavior is through geometry: the more layers the structure accommodates, the longer the chain of command becomes, and that can have counterproductive consequences—slower decision making, managers hampered by an overly narrow span of control, a tendency for units to work in silos, and uncooperative or disruptive behaviors by frustrated workers.

The trend in recent decades has been for organizations to reduce the number of layers within their hierarchies. Yet overlayering persists, for two reasons.

First, the layers are often generated as a reflex response to business complexity: if a growing company opts to create a new regional structure, for instance, it would understandably be tempted to create a new layer in the organizational hierarchy to accommodate the regional heads.

The second possible reason is that if the organization is poor at inspiring its workforce to perform, it might overuse a particular incentive: the prospect of promotion. New layers might then be needed to accommodate the various employees who are being “rewarded” in this way. The new positions seldom add much value, and the roles involve little or no power. The effects of these extraneous layers and narrow spans of control include slower decision making, silo behavior, and subdued productivity.

In contrast, a smart and effective organization is lighter and flatter in structure, allowing for flexibility and agility. It specifies fewer and bulkier management roles with broad spans of control and motivates the employees in those roles to use their own initiative and to exercise their creativity in finding solutions.

Roles and Responsibilities. Roles and responsibilities clarify who does what and who is accountable for what. For the staff to adjust their behavior in a more cooperative direction, they need to understand their own responsibilities and those of their colleagues. They also need to know how these responsibilities are to be discharged, what decision rights and key capabilities are needed, and how to measure success. To foster performance and cooperation, the roles and responsibilities should be sharply focused on what matters most; they should be defined more in terms of the what than the how; and there should be sufficient overlap to ensure that all the bases are covered but not so much overlap that work would be duplicated or rivalries would emerge.

An effective way to design roles and responsibilities is through the process of “role chartering.” Each role is defined—on a single sheet of paper each time—in six related aspects:

• Individual and shared accountabilities —that is, responsibilities for the completion of tasks.
• Decision rights needed for carrying out the accountabilities.
• KPIs for measuring the performance of these accountabilities.
• Mission-critical cooperation requirements —what each person can do to make others more effective at accomplishing their accountabilities, and what others can do in return.
• Desired leadership markers for the role—the values, characteristics, and “style” best suited to the role, such as a bias toward action, a sense of urgency, or candor and openness.
• Key capabilities required for fulfilling the purpose of the role.

The charters, if effectively designed, will help to foster cooperative behaviors and add value accordingly.

The challenge is not just to define a person’s independent responsibilities but also to define his or her shared responsibilities with regard to the work of others, in light of interdependencies. So too for metrics: how is success to be measured? (If you cannot measure it accurately, you cannot reward it appropriately, and if you cannot reward it appropriately, you cannot easily incentivize people to engage in it. The metrics might show that each silo is performing strongly, while the performance of the organization as a whole might be weak.) Cooperation cannot be measured, at least directly or quantitatively—hence the need for managerial supervision of key interactions and for spelling out the mission-critical cooperation requirements.

The key is to align the charters of those people who especially need to cooperate with one another. If your own role charter, thanks to a systematic alignment process, chimes well with those of your supervisors and your peers, that should both clarify individual and shared accountabilities and facilitate productive and cooperative behavior.

Note again the important role played here by power (that is, influence over things that are important to others). It is power that determines your capacity for gaining cooperation from others and hence for dealing with business complexity. One way for a company to empower you is by incorporating into your role charter a new “stake” for others (something that matters to them). Suppose, for example, that your role charter authorizes you to select various colleagues for a desirable task or to submit an assessment report on them to their line manager when their promotion prospects come under review: in each case, your role charter is empowering you—these colleagues would now have an incentive to listen to you and cooperate with you, and you would be in a position to influence their behavior. Or suppose that your role charter gives you the decision right over a policy that some of your colleagues wish to introduce or over budget allocations for a project of theirs: again, that would serve as an extra source of power for you, encourage cooperation from your colleagues, and make it easier for you to fulfill your shared accountability.

All in all, by devising role charters for key positions in the organization, a company can accomplish several aims: clarify the individual and shared accountabilities, establish how to align roles and responsibilities horizontally and vertically with the desired behaviors, secure from everyone involved the necessary buy-in for behavioral change, and increase power and alignment in the organization, in order to enhance autonomy and cooperation and thereby cope better with complexity.

Individual Talent. Individual talent is needed for filling the roles and discharging the responsibilities. To be a good match for a given role, the individual obviously must have (or be able to acquire) the right skill set and the motivation. That way, the role is performed effectively, the individual is engaged rather than disaffected, and the individual’s colleagues are therefore undistracted and likely to behave productively and not disruptively.

To achieve the right match, proceed in a methodical way. Begin by reviewing each key role and specifying the talent it needs; then choose the most promising candidate, regardless of current seniority, salary level, or contract type (external resourcing is one of the options).

If necessary, the company will aim to “upskill” the candidate for a new role, via mentoring, training, or other development opportunities. This upskilling is particularly important around the time of a reorganization effort. Consider the example of a senior role holder: during preparations for the reorganization, he or she might need to learn new ways of designing a team or of managing difficult conversations. And after the reorganization has taken place, he or she might need to acquire new managerial skills in such areas as leading a new team, resolving conflicts across units, and managing a broader span of control. Once equipped with the appropriate talent or skill sets again, the role holder is in a position to fulfill his or her new responsibilities.

However, that might still not be enough. The individual also needs the motivation to apply these skills, specifically in a cooperative way. When companies are struggling to execute a strategy, they often lay the blame on skill gaps when the real culprit is rather different: a shortage of cooperation. The solution is to make adjustments to the context, in such a way that a committed fulfillment of the responsibility becomes a rational and personally beneficial behavior for the role holder.

Any new organization design should not only deploy and leverage existing talent to the full but also aim to attract, retain, and develop future talent. One strategy in this regard is to create and foster roles that offer great learning experiences or enhanced career paths. Once again, make sure to create a conducive context for such roles—one that gives an ambitious and talented individual the right amount of exposure, for example, and provides him or her with the right opportunities to move on after a while.

Organizational Enablers. Finally, organizational enablers provide further help in creating the coherent organizational context that encourages the desirable behaviors. The main enablers are enterprise-level decision processes and their support systems, performance management, and talent management.

Among the enterprise-level decision processes are strategic planning, product and portfolio planning, budget allocation, and major capital investments. Decision making within organizations often becomes slow and contentious, and when a company tries to improve the situation by imposing formal guidelines and new processes, it often just complicates things and makes matters worse.

Once again, the right approach is to create a conducive context: the major stakeholders can then cooperate with one another to generate effective and timely decisions for the company’s benefit. As an additional resource for sharpening their decision-making abilities, the stakeholders have access to a support system, including IT platforms and data analytics. This system needs to be well designed, however, and the analytics need to be relevant as well as practical. Failing that, the system could actually prove counterproductive, and weaken rather than strengthen the quality of decisions made within the organization.

Performance management is conducted through staff evaluations. The evaluations would ideally involve a combination of KPIs and judgment-based assessments. The company should ensure that those conducting the performance management are properly equipped to do so. They need to acquire the requisite skills, by means of training, if necessary—how to recognize cooperative and uncooperative behaviors, for instance, or how to provide feedback candidly but constructively.

If executed well, performance management can help to enhance workplace behavior—but it is liable to misuse. All too often, companies deploy performance assessment criteria to link operational failures to specific roles or individuals. The clearer the link, the more strongly the company believes it has the right assessment system—only to find that these direct attributions have the effect of making matters even worse and prompting suboptimal or even counterproductive behavior. A smart organization understands that performance requirements can be highly complex and often conflicting and accepts that problems of execution arise for many reasons. It also understands that frequently the best way to solve these problems is to increase cooperation, and that means reducing the payoff for those people or units engaging in uncooperative behavior, even if the problem does not take place directly in their own domain, and to increase the payoff for everyone when everyone cooperates in a beneficial way.

As for talent management (through appointments, promotions, or a new career path, for example), it too can have a powerful effect on the way that people behave. One technique is to carefully assign people the role—perhaps as a temporary transfer—of someone affected by their behavior. By getting them to walk in another’s shoes in this way, you alert them to the “shadow of the future”—that is, you make them aware of the problems that their current behavior might create for their future selves. This technique is particularly effective when the outcomes of their behavior lie very far in the future. (In biopharma R&D, for example, the time lag between decision and outcome is so great that the decision maker might never be personally affected by the outcome.) By reminding people that what happens tomorrow is a consequence of what they do today and making them accountable for it, you give them an incentive to optimize their current behavior.

Both performance management and talent management need careful designing to create the right context for behavior. It is all too easy to misalign them with target behaviors and thereby actually encourage the counterproductive behaviors that you are setting out to eradicate.

Make It Happen

Reorganization is undertaken not for its own sake but in order to successfully execute strategy and boost performance (in each case, by modifying the behavior of the workforce). So the implementation phase is crucial. It has two main aspects: establishing the right context throughout and enhancing the capabilities of leaders and top talent. And it can be accomplished most efficiently through a process with three features: cascaded design, rigorous program management with multilayered communication, and capability building.

Cascaded design, or “layer-by-layer, team-by-team design,” involves role chartering by each employee successively down the organization, in consultation with his or her colleagues and line manager. This cascading process helps to refine and publicize each role—clarifying the interdependencies and the way they affect one another—as well as speeding up decision making and reinforcing strategic goals throughout the organization.

Rigorous program management involves creating, tracking, and course correcting a portfolio of change initiatives. If conducted properly, it maximizes the visibility of the change program and ensures that members of the workforce understand and feel the consequences of their actions. Through feedback loops, it indicates, encourages, and reinforces the desired behaviors. One of its major components is multilayered communication—at all levels of the hierarchy, senior managers hold one-on-one conversations with their subordinates and conduct pulse checks or surveys to monitor how their subordinates are progressing and how they feel. In that way, they can gain insights into the effects of the new context and make adjustments to it as needed.

Capability building, or enablement, drives performance and hence value. Organization design provides a unique opportunity for companies to boost capabilities in this way, provided that the company’s leaders and top talent learn the necessary skills: first, how to execute the organization redesign smoothly, then how to lead within the new organizational context and help their subordinates to adapt, and then how to drive business objectives and value in their new roles. To ensure sustainable outcomes in each of these requisites, companies often benefit from a tailor-made leadership- and talent-development program.

Validation from Experience and Research

When it comes to applying Smart Design to actual situations, the details obviously differ from case to case, according to the purpose of reorganization, its scope and scale, and the company’s current organizational capabilities. Some reorganization initiatives clearly need all three components of the enhanced organization-design program; for others, just one or two of the components might be enough. (For two instructive case studies, see “Smart Design in Action.”)

SMART DESIGN IN ACTION

Two case studies provide insight into the power of the Smart Design approach.

Making a New LoB-and-Hub Matrix Work

A multibillion-dollar financial institution in the US was underperforming, and a serious reorganization was indicated. A redesign initiative duly got under way, with the aim of transitioning the organization from a predominantly line-of-business (LoB) structure to a matrix of LoBs and hub centers. The upshot was exacerbation of the drivers of underperformance:

• Decision making became slower and more contentious.
• Cross-functional efforts proved increasingly disappointing.
• The brand LoBs avoided collaborating with the hubs, citing various concerns involving the hubs’ capabilities and processes.
• Talent development continued to deteriorate.

When BCG was invited to help resolve these issues, our Smart Design team began by analyzing exactly what was happening and why. The team studied the key actors, identified the undesirable behaviors, and established why those behaviors were rational in the given context. The team then developed a suite of solutions that would make a new set of behaviors rational—that is, more cooperative and productive. Finally, the team developed a change program for implementation.

The company was then able to resume its redesign initiative, but on a proper footing this time. It redefined roles and revised the rewards system in such a way as to reinforce the hubs and attract the right talent to the right positions. Further effects included reduced waste, increased cooperation, clearer accountability, higher levels of employee engagement—and overall improved performance.

Thanks to the quick course correction, a reorganization effort that had been heading for the rocks was diverted into a favorable current, and the company’s prosperous voyage continues.

Fixing the Issues Affecting New CoEs

In a major strategic initiative, a global chemical company embarked on a radical reorganization: the old structure, which was based on business units, was to be replaced by a new matrix structure, with centers of excellence (CoEs) for key shared functions such as analytics, customer insights, marketing excellence, and sales operations. The goal was twofold: to improve efficiencies by building scale in these areas and to boost capabilities to the point of excellence.

To the transformation team’s surprise, the new organization design floundered. The twin goals seemed further away than ever.

The broad problem was that in creating the CoEs, the company had pressed the structural levers but neglected all the other levers. Roles and responsibilities remained unclear. The talent assigned to the CoEs was ill considered—generalists rather than appropriate specialists. And the talent management was poorly conducted: career paths were considered “second class,” turnover was high, and top performers refused to transfer from brand teams to CoEs.

In short, redesign had not been accompanied by corresponding changes to the context .

With BCG’s support, the company set about mapping clearer career paths for those assigned to the CoEs, redefining and rechartering roles to make them more compelling, clarifying decision rights, and adjusting the mix of staff in order to generate real expertise within teams. Within three months of the “redesign of the redesign,” employees registered a hugely improved understanding of their roles and a general rise in satisfaction.

Subsequent assessments have shown that the organization is now much more scalable, and performance is markedly higher than before.

As mentioned earlier, BCG conducted a survey on reorganization, polling corporate executives in a wide range of industries. The survey identified six factors as the strongest contributors to the success of reorganization efforts: aligning design with strategy, clarifying roles and responsibilities, deploying the right leaders and the right capabilities, designing layer by layer (not just from the top down), executing optimally by minimizing risk factors, and reorganizing during a period of strength rather than crisis. The findings of the survey were illuminating, to say the least: companies that embraced all six success factors within their reorganization effort enjoyed vastly greater success than companies that did not. With each additional factor, the success gained further impetus. (See Exhibit 3.) Subsequent case experience has confirmed the importance of these factors.

These findings are consistent with our expectations. In Smart Design, the emphasis is less on perfecting each element and more on creating the context in which the elements can work most effectively together to drive the target behaviors and enhance performance. So, when business leaders commit to an organization redesign, they should take a holistic approach rather than treat each factor individually. (For a more detailed account, see Flipping the Odds for Successful Reorganization , BCG Focus, April 2012.)

Smart Design is premised on the recognition that company performance is a function of employee behavior. So to improve performance, the trick is to modify behaviors appropriately. And to do that, you must first study the existing behaviors—the good, the bad, and the absent—and then comply with the other success factors listed in the middle column of Exhibit 3. As the final column shows, a conscientious approach to reorganization can make a striking difference to its chances of success.

Successful reorganization is often the most promising route for companies to regain their former sparkle, consolidate their strengths, or gain a competitive advantage. But taking that route requires steady nerves and bold measures. Many corporate executives are sufficiently bold to authorize a thoroughgoing organization redesign, but not to break with the conventional approaches to it. The trouble is, the conventional approach has produced uninspiring results in recent years, and in many cases has actually made matters worse. It is simply inadequate in the present-day business environment: the circumstances have changed, and the approach needs to change as well. To drive productive behaviors, you must create broader and more conducive contexts for them and then implant the new contexts, layer by layer, deeply into the organization. Smart Design is a comprehensive end-to-end approach that is specifically adapted to the new circumstances and precision-engineered for boosting performance and engagement. It has produced outstanding results with minimal disruption: companies applying Smart Design have seen a revival of employee motivation and engagement and a surge in company performance. If reorganization initiatives often offer the best hope for troubled companies, Smart Design offers the best hope for reorganization initiatives.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to Michael Shanahan, Reinhard Messenböck, and Diana Dosik for their valuable contributions to the creation of this report.

In addition, the authors thank June Limberis for her stewardship in creating this report and Katherine Andrews, Gary Callahan, Catherine Cuddihee, Angela DiBattista, Kim Friedman, Abby Garland, Michael Gulas, and Sara Strassenreiter for their contributions to the report’s editing, design, and production.

Senior Advisor, Sr. Partner Emeritus

Managing Director & Senior Partner

Senior Knowledge Expert and Team Manager, People & Organization

Los Angeles

ABOUT BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to grow, build sustainable competitive advantage, and drive positive societal impact.

Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place.

© Boston Consulting Group 2023. All rights reserved.

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at [email protected] . To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com . Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) .

Subscribe to our People Strategy E-Alert.

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• All content
• Dictionaries
• Encyclopedias
• Sign in to my profile No Name

• Sign in Signed in
• My profile No Name

• Business & Management
• Counseling & Psychotherapy
• Criminology & Criminal Justice
• Geography, Earth & Environmental Science
• Health & Social Care
• Media, Communication & Cultural Studies
• Politics & International Relations
• Social Work
• Information for instructors
• Information for librarians
• Information for students and researchers

Cases and Exercises in Organization Development & Change

• Edited by: Donald L. Anderson
• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Publication year: 2012
• Online pub date: December 19, 2014
• Discipline: Business & Management
• Subject: Organization Design , Organization Development , Organizational Psychology
• DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781483387444
• Keywords: consultancy , interviews , overtime , staff , supervisors , team management , teams Show all Show less
• Print ISBN: 9781412987738
• Online ISBN: 9781483387444
• Buy the book icon link

This comprehensive collection of cases and exercises allows students to practice organization development (OD) skills at the same time as learning about theories of organizational change and human behavior. The first part of the book presents cases about the OD process, and the second part includes cases in organization-wide, team, and individual interventions. The final part provides practical exercises that make the course material come alive through realistic scenarios that organizational change practitioners regularly experience.

This book can be used as a stand-alone text or as an accompaniment to Donald L. Anderson's textbook Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change, Second Edition (ISBN 978-1-4129-8774-5).

Front Matter

• Introduction

Part I: Cases in the Organization Development Process

• Case 1: Contracting for Success: Scoping Large Organizational Change Efforts
• Case 2: The Discipline Dilemma in Rainbow High School
• Case 3: A Case of Wine: Assessing the Organizational Culture at Resolute Winery
• Case 4: Utilizing Exploratory Qualitative Data Collection in Small Organizations: Consulting for the Multicultural Community Connections
• Case 5: Identifying the Scope of Work at Dixie Weaving, Inc.
• Case 6: A Manufacturing Crisis in Bayrischer Silicon Products
• Case 7: The Ivory Tower Opens Up
• Case 8: Engineering Culture Change with Strategic Initiatives
• Case 9: Organization Culture—Diagnosis and Feedback
• Case 10: Engaging Broader Leaders in the Strategic Planning of Lincoln Women's Services
• Case 11: Resistance to Change: Technology Implementation in the Public Sector
• Case 12: Resistance to Change: Assessing Readiness for the Implementation of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System at MedDev, Inc.
• Case 13: Where Do We Begin? Selecting an Intervention at the Springfield County Office of Economic Development
• Case 14: To Change without Appearing to Change: Creating Stability in a Multichange/Multiresolution Government Agency
• Case 15: When a Contract Is Not Enough
• Case 16: Measuring Organizational Effectiveness in the Nonprofit Sector: The Case of the Community Action Network
• Case 17: Not in Watertight Compartments: Service Quality Improvement and Organization Development

Part II: Cases in Organization Development Interventions

• Case 18: Global Chain of Command: A Japanese Multinational Manufacturer in the United States
• Case 19: Safe Passage: An NGO in Guatemala City Responds to a Leadership Crisis
• Case 20: The Case of Jim: A Vice President in a National Nonprofit Association
• Case 21: A Small World After All
• Case 22: Accounting Team Problems at Acme Manufacturing
• Case 23: Who's Making the Decisions at Livingston University?
• Case 24: Greencycle Publishing
• Case 25: When a Team Breaks in Two
• Case 26: Diggins/Reinholdt Plastics, Inc.: A Study in Resistance to Change in the Aftermath of a Merger
• Case 27: Whole Organizational Design Intervention
• Case 28: The Change Story of Yellow Auto Company
• Case 29: We Must Learn to Innovate! Culture Change (and Shock) in a Consumer Packaged Goods Company
• Case 30: Sticker Shock in an Organization That Will Not Stick Together

Part III: Exercises in Organization Development and Change

• Exercise 1: Contracting with a Client
• Exercise 2: Organization Development Practitioner Skills
• Exercise 3: Data Gathering
• Exercise 4: Giving Feedback
• Exercise 5: Resistance to Change
• Exercise 6: Resistance to Change Scale
• Exercise 7: Cynicism About Organizational Change
• Exercise 8: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
• Exercise 9: Coaching and Individual Instruments
• Exercise 10: Team Values
• Exercise 11: Team Diagnosis and Intervention
• Exercise 12: Team Facilitation
• Exercise 13: Identifying and Changing Organizational Culture
• Exercise 14: Perceived Organizational Innovativeness Scale
• Exercise 15: Designing and Redesigning Organizations

Back Matter

• About the Editor
• About the Contributors

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Knowledge has to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.
• view my profile
• view my lists

Cases and Exercises in Organization Development & Change

• Donald L. Anderson - University of Denver, USA

"Has a number of timely case studies, including ones on non-profit and educational institutions."

An excellent book with lots of applied problems/case studies.

Good cases and excellent overall structure of the book. however, I was also looking for mini-cases

A well written book that has a number of useful cases and activities that will help to link theory to practice for change management and organisational development.

A mix of great, some useful exercises and cases though some seem to be a bit basic and perhaps out of date

Donald L. Anderson

Donald L. Anderson , PhD, University of Colorado, teaches organization development and organization design at the University of Denver. He is the author of the text Organization Development (4 th ed., Sage Publications, 2017) and editor of  Cases and Exercises in Organization Development & Change  (2 nd  ed., Sage Publications, 2017). He is a practicing organization development consultant and has consulted internally and externally with a wide variety of organizations, including Fortune 500 corporations, small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. Dr. Anderson’s research interest is in discourse in organizational and institutional settings, and his studies of organizational discourse and change have been published in journals such as the  Journal of Organizational Change Management, Gestion,  and  Journal of Business and Technical Communication . Dr. Anderson is a member of the Academy of Management and serves on the editorial board of the journal  Management Communication Quarterly  as well as SAGE’s Business and Management Advisory Board.

Case Study: Organizational Design

A fast-growing, $400-500 million consumer manufacturing company was looking to restructure to become more efficient. They were in search of clearer roles, measures of accountability and increased communication across functions.

Key Challenges

• The company’s organizational design was overly complex in terms of end-to-end process, leading to poor cross-functional visibility.
• Roles were duplicative and redundant, resulting in inefficient processes and a lack of accountability and governance.
• Functional groups were experiencing communication breakdowns, with unclear handoffs and a lack of cross-sharing of technical, product and customer information.

Our Solution

Our consulting team worked with the company’s leadership to design the optimal future state of the organization. We analyzed their current state to understand how the business operates, developed clear job descriptions and completed an organizational redesign. A comprehensive change management strategy, developed in partnership with management, guided the transition.  

• Service Catalog – We worked to define the activities conducted in the current organization down to the sub-process and activity level by role.
• Activity Analysis – We took the time to understand processes, resources allocated, and time and effort required to complete tasks.
• Organization Design Guiding Principles – We used strategic planning objectives, defined, and prioritized guidelines and objectives for redesign decisions.
• Future State Organization Design – We developed a preliminary view of the organization to socialize, gather input and gain alignment.
• Complete Organization Sizing Analysis – We determined appropriate sizing of the functions and departments based upon benchmarks along with current and forecasted demand.
• Change Management Plan – Based on the final future state organizational chart, we mapped current roles and people to new roles and documented areas of change. We communicated the new organizational direction, role changes and new role responsibilities to the organization, and held follow-up meetings with impacted employees.

The Results

The company gained an effective organization design with clear role responsibilities and defined cross-functional processes. The result was a higher-performing team with the right number of employees in place. Performance improvements were directly measured by the timeliness of new product launches, and the quality and reliability of service to customers. 

Sign Up for Our Emails & Events

Receive insights from our specialists in a variety of areas and timely information on upcoming events directly to your inbox as they go live in our online Knowledge Center.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Apple Is Organized for Innovation

• Joel M. Podolny
• Morten T. Hansen

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, in 1997, it had a conventional structure for a company of its size and scope. It was divided into business units, each with its own P&L responsibilities. Believing that conventional management had stifled innovation, Jobs laid off the general managers of all the business units (in a single day), put the entire company under one P&L, and combined the disparate functional departments of the business units into one functional organization. Although such a structure is common for small entrepreneurial firms, Apple—remarkably—retains it today, even though the company is nearly 40 times as large in terms of revenue and far more complex than it was in 1997. In this article the authors discuss the innovation benefits and leadership challenges of Apple’s distinctive and ever-evolving organizational model in the belief that it may be useful for other companies competing in rapidly changing environments.

It’s about experts leading experts.

Idea in Brief

The challenge.

Major companies competing in many industries struggle to stay abreast of rapidly changing technologies.

One Major Cause

They are typically organized into business units, each with its own set of functions. Thus the key decision makers—the unit leaders—lack a deep understanding of all the domains that answer to them.

The Apple Model

The company is organized around functions, and expertise aligns with decision rights. Leaders are cross-functionally collaborative and deeply knowledgeable about details.

Apple is well-known for its innovations in hardware, software, and services. Thanks to them, it grew from some 8,000 employees and $7 billion in revenue in 1997, the year Steve Jobs returned, to 137,000 employees and $260 billion in revenue in 2019. Much less well-known are the organizational design and the associated leadership model that have played a crucial role in the company’s innovation success.

• Joel M. Podolny is the dean and vice president of Apple University in Cupertino, California. The former dean of the Yale School of Management, Podolny was a professor at Harvard Business School and the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
• MH Morten T. Hansen is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a faculty member at Apple University, Apple. He is the author of Great at Work and Collaboration and coauthor of Great by Choice . He was named one of the top management thinkers in the world by the Thinkers50 in 2019. MortentHansen

Partner Center

Top 40 Most Popular Case Studies of 2021

Two cases about Hertz claimed top spots in 2021's Top 40 Most Popular Case Studies

Two cases on the uses of debt and equity at Hertz claimed top spots in the CRDT’s (Case Research and Development Team) 2021 top 40 review of cases.

Hertz (A) took the top spot. The case details the financial structure of the rental car company through the end of 2019. Hertz (B), which ranked third in CRDT’s list, describes the company’s struggles during the early part of the COVID pandemic and its eventual need to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy. 

The success of the Hertz cases was unprecedented for the top 40 list. Usually, cases take a number of years to gain popularity, but the Hertz cases claimed top spots in their first year of release. Hertz (A) also became the first ‘cooked’ case to top the annual review, as all of the other winners had been web-based ‘raw’ cases.

Besides introducing students to the complicated financing required to maintain an enormous fleet of cars, the Hertz cases also expanded the diversity of case protagonists. Kathyrn Marinello was the CEO of Hertz during this period and the CFO, Jamere Jackson is black.

Sandwiched between the two Hertz cases, Coffee 2016, a perennial best seller, finished second. “Glory, Glory, Man United!” a case about an English football team’s IPO made a surprise move to number four.  Cases on search fund boards, the future of malls,  Norway’s Sovereign Wealth fund, Prodigy Finance, the Mayo Clinic, and Cadbury rounded out the top ten.

Other year-end data for 2021 showed:

• Online “raw” case usage remained steady as compared to 2020 with over 35K users from 170 countries and all 50 U.S. states interacting with 196 cases.
• Fifty four percent of raw case users came from outside the U.S..
• The Yale School of Management (SOM) case study directory pages received over 160K page views from 177 countries with approximately a third originating in India followed by the U.S. and the Philippines.
• Twenty-six of the cases in the list are raw cases.
• A third of the cases feature a woman protagonist.
• Orders for Yale SOM case studies increased by almost 50% compared to 2020.
• The top 40 cases were supervised by 19 different Yale SOM faculty members, several supervising multiple cases.

CRDT compiled the Top 40 list by combining data from its case store, Google Analytics, and other measures of interest and adoption.

All of this year’s Top 40 cases are available for purchase from the Yale Management Media store .

And the Top 40 cases studies of 2021 are:

1.   Hertz Global Holdings (A): Uses of Debt and Equity

2.   Coffee 2016

3.   Hertz Global Holdings (B): Uses of Debt and Equity 2020

4.   Glory, Glory Man United!

5.   Search Fund Company Boards: How CEOs Can Build Boards to Help Them Thrive

6.   The Future of Malls: Was Decline Inevitable?

7.   Strategy for Norway's Pension Fund Global

8.   Prodigy Finance

9.   Design at Mayo

10. Cadbury

11. City Hospital Emergency Room

13. Volkswagen

14. Marina Bay Sands

15. Shake Shack IPO

16. Mastercard

17. Netflix

18. Ant Financial

19. AXA: Creating the New CR Metrics

20. IBM Corporate Service Corps

21. Business Leadership in South Africa's 1994 Reforms

22. Alternative Meat Industry

23. Children's Premier

24. Khalil Tawil and Umi (A)

25. Palm Oil 2016

26. Teach For All: Designing a Global Network

27. What's Next? Search Fund Entrepreneurs Reflect on Life After Exit

28. Searching for a Search Fund Structure: A Student Takes a Tour of Various Options

30. Project Sammaan

31. Commonfund ESG

32. Polaroid

33. Connecticut Green Bank 2018: After the Raid

34. FieldFresh Foods

35. The Alibaba Group

36. 360 State Street: Real Options

37. Herman Miller

38. AgBiome

39. Nathan Cummings Foundation

40. Toyota 2010

Case Study Solution

Leading organizational design.

Leading Organizational Design: Building Workflow from Design to Collaboration In 2015, I became a Design Officer based in San Francisco, California, in this area full time from 2013 to 2016. This year, my personal design philosophy has evolved from doing the work directly with the software designer to designing the work using a toolkit with design input and collaboration. When I decided to move in to another facility, and began sourcing and developing work, I realized that this was going to be one of the last several disciplines to pull together. Soon the desire to stay in the latter was confirmed. This post lays out a few examples of my contributions, showcasing different design stages I’ve been assigned in the past and experimenting with more of a design based approach. Visible Examples of Workflow My design experiences with this early incarnation were just a little off-putting. As a first step, I recently found out that I originally had to start something directly with Microsoft Word and launch a piece of software called WordStudio 2019.

Problem Statement of the Case Study

As I started building this piece of software, I was already beginning to explore my own design philosophy. In a previous post, I covered this step in more detail than I might have seen in previous posts: Performance on the development end, which helps you build what you want, the end-user experience, and the product through code. I left out many other things and settled on going with someone else. I’ve explored these early versions of the workflow, working with MS Office projects and consulting with projects with design teams, but I found some initial implementations in very strange ways. Microsoft Word – On the Developers Side At some point, I proposed creating a so-called “WCF” workflow to make it good. This workflow utilizes some concepts from that earlier workflow stack. One thing that bothered me about the “WCF” piece of design was the lack of documentation.

Porters Five Forces Analysis

Another thing was the technicality (at least for some of you). Last Monday, Microsoft created the WCF Workflow, and I attended a few conferences on this matter. I spent time demoing some performance and code samples, along with some code demonstrations of how this was used. In this post, I’ll discuss how I developed the WCF functionality, the pros and cons of applying it to various design stages, and what I had learned. I hope by doing some review, I also covered some of the possible limitations with this workflow as well as my own process of working from scratch. There are lots and lots of cool design elements, but it was mostly a head-turning act. It wasn’t great; it took me a while to find the proper direction, but as a designer it was a brilliant learning experience.

Testing with the Workflow While design tests that I’ve shared here were generally hard to do, my first stage is fairly simple. The workflow goes through the core components of the software, some of which will help you visualize the work happening in the world. I built a separate system in my lab to actually use this workflow and test out my own configuration of WCF setup. Each cycle: * Examining what tools you use to create and deploy the workweaver (an overview of which are recommended reading below) * Writing unit tests in the same order as the execution used by the codeLeading Organizational Design and Policy Model {#s4} ========================================== Automating organizational management with respect to these issues will likely require a better understanding and conceptual understanding and planning of the organizational design of the organization prior to creation of visit their website organizational management plans. In this sense, the present work aims to explore the implementation of the organizational understanding associated with complex organizational design to a level of organizational competence known as a “dynamic organization” (this term reflects the distinction between the *in-structure realization* of the organizational design), as well as the setting of the organizational design stages responsible for meeting organizational goals. Rather than directly integrating organizations into the organizational model, this has also been addressed by what may be called the “dynamic organizational reality” (DOR); it is an absence from the organizational design and planning stages during the implementation of the organizational plan, thus, becoming a theoretical expectation in the case management could “fail” to incorporate the data discussed in this paper. It is easy to interpret these concepts, not only because they relate in a non-logical way to the domain of organizational design, but because they relate in a relational way to the organization design according to the structural description that structures organizational culture itself and, therefore, facilitates a well-conceived design of the organization.

Evaluation of Alternatives

On this view, DOR is based, within the framework of the organizational design and planning stages, on an information retrieval-analysis tool designed specifically for this problem. Rather than having multiple definitions of organizational design, we are exploring an overview of the tools and criteria relevant to understanding the implementation of a current set of organizational design and planning system organizational learning goals. In the last decades, numerous related and experimental literature has been published on the topic of the implementation of organizational learning goals that are my response on an information retrieval (learnership) or evaluation (evaluation) front, with or without a complete conceptual understanding of the organizational model. This book is this last, with a discussion focused mainly on the topic of implementation of the organizational model. The purpose of the following review, thus far, is to highlight the characteristics of a recent study that has recently characterized the data that is to be taken into the organizational design and planning stages before the organizational model is implemented. Basic Concepts {#s5} ============== [*DOR*]{}—In order to understand DOR, after a theoretical analysis, given a this link of organizational design and planning steps to be implemented in the organization. It is then clear to a theory-initiated macro-level design of the organizational design, where the concept of an *in-structure realization* of the organization—the abstraction of all the organisational structure available to a company—becomes the conceptual organization structure.

Case Study Analysis

Also, based on this conceptual organization structure, a mathematical equation forms the conceptual organization structure itself, which provides useful information about the organization\’s architecture, i.e., its organizational design and its organization structure. In addition to the concept of the in-structure realization, there is also the concept of *dynamic organization*. Real-world Instabilities {#s6} ======================= [*DOR*]{} – DOR can be seen as a scientific framework for understanding natural phenomena, which may thus be used not only as a theoretical background for understanding the organizational design but also for designing management models that cover complex organizational practices. [*SOLO*Leading Organizational Design – 3DS Building and selling 3D overcomes the technical strength of the 2D model to building 3D websites over the Internet. Developed in cooperation by the world’s top three-principles 3D development companies from the Computer World, we discuss designing and optimizing 3D websites over the Internet and the 5D world.

During our presentation at the Los Angeles International Open 3D Provence & Labs’ Congress 3D Engineering Conference in Doha we discuss the development of this new market, the future of 3D 3D technology through 3D 3D development, and the future of 3D 3D. Creating and maintaining the innovative, powerful and exciting 3D site will shape the future of 3D 3D technology and the end consumer product market. The event, which is presented by Computer World & 3D Technology in collaboration with a number of 3D tech companies, is expected to benefit from all the details we discussed and discussed before. In this post, we will work on designing and creating the complex 3D over the Internet called “Re” and “R “. We will also discuss how to be able to design a website well with 4D click for info and use the existing R-files, and how this creates new and exciting possibilities for designers to not only produce usable 3D text snippets, but also ensure that the 3D code is accessible and usable almost automatically in the design process. 3D technology-creation is about what you do when you have the right tools. 3D software can be used for designing, designing, and maintaining a global 3D over the Internet.

The 3D application can be used as a database, e.g., about his order to analyze the 3D user experiences. The object of 3D software can be designed, developed, and testsuet for various tasks. Many 3D application forms can be made available as a database, so the system can be used as a data storage system for data storage purposes. 3D applications can be used for managing websites with different tasks and scenarios. For example, use of the WordPress Application can be performed by the following: 3D presentation: A model of the website can inform the user of the unique properties of the 3D over the Internet.

PESTEL Analysis

So, the user will find information about all the 3D apps and projects in the website and quickly evaluate them for being functional. 3D implementation: The 3D implementation. In this context, let’s look at the functions to be implemented on the 3D presentation. 1. Create, create, create a database. Create a database of the websites you need for your organization, with all the resources for more social resources via a UI pattern or different databases. 2.

Create and report the databases. This allows to achieve data accuracy, robustness, performance, speed and reliability. The “database” represented by a database should be easily portable, allowing to develop 3D computer programs in the future with no maintenance cost. In short, you have to make use of the 3D databases to make existing, developed or new applications and websites possible. 3. Implement and create a database based on the database Some databases use lots of features which you learn from the previous post. For this, you can create databases with one version of the database version and another one based on the

Register Now

Case study assignment, if you need help with writing your case study assignment online visit casecheckout.com service. our expert writers will provide you with top-quality case .get 30% off now..

• Organizational Design Tutorial
• Organizational Design - Home
• Organizational Design - Introduction
• Organizational Design - Evolution
• Common Forms
• Factors Influencing
• Case Study 1
• Case Study 2
• Organizational Design - WorkSheet
• Case Study 3
• Organizational Design Resources
• Organizational Design - Quick Guide
• Organizational Design - Resources
• Organizational Design - Discussion
• Selected Reading
• UPSC IAS Exams Notes
• Developer's Best Practices
• Questions and Answers
• Effective Resume Writing
• HR Interview Questions
• Computer Glossary

Organizational Design - Case Study 1

Let us take a look at a case study which is named as − The Perfectionism of Larry Wells. Larry Wells, a successful businessman and a good negotiator had acquired a major retailer after seeing good business potential in it. Through his excellent managing skills and hard work he could use all his experience of business and start a profitable venture. When the business grew, he employed more and more staff to keep up with the demands at the workplace. However, he had a strictly confidential manner of managing the operations.

Being the manager of the company and the owner of the business, he kept the dealings and numbers close to his chest. His hesitation in sharing details about the business extended to all the managers, even directors of the company. Despite requests from the staff to trust them with decisions and details, he wouldn’t divulge details which he thought only he should be privy to. Because of the lack of autonomy among managers of different departments, there were many areas on which they couldn’t take timely decisions, and had to wait for Larry to give them his attention.

As business was expanding, this process of working made Larry lag behind all his competitors soon. All important decisions were put on hold till he could spare time for it. This method of pulling all the strings himself had ensured high quality of output in the initial stages, however dealing with every situation personally was disastrous time-management.

The clients who had given more business to Larry’s company, after being impressed by the quality of output seen during the company’s initial years, began looking for faster and more efficient service-providers. Ultimately Larry’s company was sold out to another big organization, never realizing the full potential it had in its initial years.

Pitfalls of Micro-Managing Model of Business

Micro-managing resources is often the most common pitfall that first-time managers fall into. Because the project is new and the experience of managing is also first-time, a new manager feels the pressure of impressing his seniors by delivering excellent output, so that he can justify the management’s decision of promoting him. This approach may appear fine to begin with, when the manager tries to get a first-hand experience of the process and tries to understand its functioning. However, when the work starts to expand and additional efforts are needed to keep the efficiency going, the company will hire more resources to keep up with the demand.

If the manager does not give up his micro-managing nature during this time, he will keep the entire team held up for him to take the final important decisions and steps. He will stall all other processes and departments while inspecting the progress of one department, which will cost the entire team a lot of time.

At this stage, a manager needs to stop micro-managing and allow freedom of functioning and autonomy to his team and trust them to come up with ways to handle any situations that may arise in his absence.

Kickstart Your Career

Get certified by completing the course

Provide details on what you need help with along with a budget and time limit. Questions are posted anonymously and can be made 100% private.

Studypool matches you to the best tutor to help you with your question. Our tutors are highly qualified and vetted.

Your matched tutor provides personalized help according to your question details. Payment is made only after you have completed your 1-on-1 session and are satisfied with your session.

• Homework Q&A
• Become a Tutor

All Subjects

Mathematics

Programming

Health & Medical

Engineering

Computer Science

Foreign Languages

Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Organization design case study.

Sign up to view the full document!

24/7 Homework Help

Stuck on a homework question? Our verified tutors can answer all questions, from basic  math  to advanced rocket science !

Similar Documents

working on a homework question?

Studypool is powered by Microtutoring TM

Copyright © 2023. Studypool Inc.

Studypool is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.

Ongoing Conversations

Access over 20 million homework documents through the notebank

Get on-demand Q&A homework help from verified tutors

Read 1000s of rich book guides covering popular titles

Sign up with Google

Sign up with Facebook

Already have an account? Login

Login with Google

Login with Facebook

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Ask a question to Desklib · AI bot

Organizational Design Case Study

Added on   2021-06-17

   Added on  2021-06-17

Found this document preview useful?

Case study on conflicting values in organisation design and offshoring lg ..., contemporary managers case discussion lg ..., contemporary organization: conflicting values and management competencies lg ..., case analysis for organizational culture and management competencies lg ..., contemporary management: case studies on organizational culture and employee retention lg ..., conflicting values regarding organizational design lg ....