cHztFTER zi The Analysis and Design of Work 14

anticipate and shape customer preferences rather what is underestimated is innovation in processes "
:han simply respond to them. Thus, while Toyota and organizations."
was celebrating Decoming number 1 in volume,
hw Toyota hecame numlaer 1 in sales volume by following one
aroach! whereas Bv
V/ became number in prcifits by ta!ing a different
approach. "ther automobile manufactu
rers li#e $eneral %&%otors and 'ord u(ere
struggling to compete with Toyota
with profit margins oJ over 8 percent in 2006,
!W is actuall" number 1 in terms of joro?ts. #s
$rnst %auman, hea& of personnel at %!W, states,
'(eople tall about innovation in pro&ucts, but
Introduction
)oumes* +, -ile", ./he /o"ota Wa" to l0o, 1,2 BusinessWeek, #pril 23, 2003,
pp, 41524, 1, 6owle", 7$ven /o"ota /sn.t (erfect,' %usinessWeek, Januar"
11, 2003, pp, 568 %, %reen, '%!W* Driven b" Design,'9ast
'Company, #ugust 2004, pp, 2512:8 ;, $&mon&son, '%!W<s
Dream =actor",'
%us nessWeek, +ctober 16, 2006, pp, 369808 ;, $&mon&son, 2/he )ecret
, of %1v1W<s )uccess,7 BusinessWeek Online, Ouober 16, 2006, pp, J 352J,
and
l)*+ and were forced to slash payrolls and lay off wor!ers. *any years ago,
w
re bet ieved that the differ ence between ,.-. auto producers and their foreign
pptiapetitc re could be traced to .merican wor!ers/ however, when companies li!e
To
eta and 01onda came into the #imited -tates and demonstrated clearly that they
22uld run profitable c3r com4aaiiies v(ith .merican wor!ers, the focus shifted to pro5
cesses an1 organization. % t is now clear that the success of many of these non5,.-.
firms &vas attr ibutable to h1i&(( the6 structured the wor! and desigTied their
gatiizations. 'or e3ample, Tc7yota8s tie&v plant in -an .ntonio, Te3as differs in
many wa6- ftoiTl the $eneral *eteors ptant in .9rlington, Te3as, but the nature of the
%n :hapter ; we discussed the processes of strategy fen mutation atid strategy
implementation. -trategy formulation is the process l<y v(l(.ich a con=oany decides
how it will compete in the mar!et4<acc/ this is often the etiergizing ancl guiding
force ter everything it does. -trateg6 iinpletnentati1<ti is the iva6> the strat
>r>? r
an
gets carried
out in activities of organi:atic<na mcmbets. &Ve noted fi
> > i7>rtatit cc<inpotierits in
the strategy implemeniatic<ri /<roce@s, three of v(hich are ciiiectA6 related to the human
resource management function and one of which we v ill discuss in this thapter: the (
tas! or Bob.(
*any central aspects of strategy formulation address h1Cv( the vv5ot! gets done, in
terms of indivDiEual Bob design as vv5elf as the design of organi.ational structures that
ltn! indi3(idual Bobs to each other and the organization as a whole, The way a firm
competes can have a profouticl impact on the wa (s Bobs are desgiic>cl atid how they are 8
F lin!ed via organizatic<rial structure. %ti turn, the fit hetweeri the ccomG anv(s structure ,
and environment can ha3 e a iriaBor impact on the inns ccoinpet itive success.
'or e3ample, li!e Toyota, if a company wants to compete via a lov(5cost, high5
reliability strategy, it needs ten ma3imize efficiency and coordination. Hfficiency is
ma3imized l<y brea!ing Bobs dnivri into small, siin4<le components that are e3ecuted
repetitiv>ely by lo3v5wage, low5s!illed wor!ers who nre focused on following written
rules. Hfficiency is also enhance1i by eliminating any rcclundanc6 cot supipcirt services,
so that Eobs are structured itito functional clusters where e< erycme in the cluster is
performing similar wor!. 4Thus all mar!eting 4(eople wor! togethe.r in a single unit, all
engineering personnel wor! tcogether in a single unir, arrd s1< on.6 Ieople v(or!ing
together within these functional clusters learn a great cleal ai<c<ut how the function
can be used to leverage their s!ills into small amounts of iiicreasecl efficiency via F
continuous, evolutionary itnprovcmeiits, and higher level managers focus e3clusively
on coordinating the different functional units.
"n the other hand, if a coiripany li!e B*+ wants t1o compete via iniio3 ation, it
needs to ma3imize fle3ibil it/(. 'le3ibil ity is ma3imized b& aggrcgatin) wor! into larger,
holistic pieces that are e3ecuted by teams of higher5wage, higher5s!illed wor!ers. (
'le3ibility is also enhanced by gi3(itip the utiits their own support systems and decision5
ma!ing authority to ta!e advantage of local opportunities in regional or special5
ized product mar!ets. Ieople wor!ing together in these cross5functional clustJrs
generate a greater number of creative and novel ideas that can be leveraged into more
discontinuous, revolutionary improvements. F
Thus, it shoutd be clear from the outset of this chapter that there is no Kotie bJst
wayL to design Bobs and structure organizations. The organization needs to create a fi(8
between its environment, competitive strategy, and philosophy on the one hand, with
its Bobs and organizational design oti the other. Thus, in our opening
story, we saw
zoiY
oice 'w
not one
of new.
This
chapter
d
iscuCscs
:he
analysis
and
design
of wor!
and, in
doing
so, lays
out
some
ccanside
raticiris
that get
intca
ma!ing
informe
d
decision
s about
hc<w( to
create
and lin!
Bolts.
The
chapter
is
divined
into
three
sections,
the first of which deals with Kliig5 picture" issues related to 3v w!5flow( ati1ilysis and organizational structure.
The retain5 ing two sections deal v(ith more spe cilic, ioxx-ct-lever ssue related to E cib analysis and Bob
design.
The fields of Bob analysis and Bob design have e3tensiv5e overlap, yet in the past
they have been treated diflercritl6.8 Eob analysis has focused on analyzing e3isting Bohs to gather info:mation
fcir other human resource management practices such as selection, training, performance appraisal, and
compensation. Eob design, on the other hand, has focused on redesigning e3isting Bobs to ma!e them more
efficient or more motivating to Bobliolders.8 Thus Bob design has had a more proac tive c<rientation tov&
arcM changing the Bob, whereas Bob analysis has had a passi3Ne, information5gathering or ienra rion. 0owever, as
we will show in this chapter, these two approaches are
F interrelated.
+or!5'low .nalysis and "rganization -tructure
"n the ast! HR rofessionals and line managers have tended to analyze or design a
articular #ob in isc$lat1on drcom the larger organi%ational conte&t' (or)* w design is the
rocess of analyzing the tas)s necessary for the roduction of a +irciduct or service! rior to
allocating and assigning those tasl,s to a articular #c$b category or erson' -lnly after
we thoroughl./ understand wor)*0ow design can we ma)e informed decisions regarding
liov1 to ini rially trundle v*arious tas)s into discrete #obs that can be e2ecuted by a single
erson'
3rgnnttotion structure refers to the relatively stable and formnl
networ) of vertical arid horizontal interconnections among #obs that
constitute the organization' 3nly after we understand hov4 one #ob relates
to those above +suervisors.! below +subordi* nates.! atid at the same
level in di5erent functional areas +mar)eting versus roduc* tinny can
we ma)e informed clecisions about how to reclesign or imrove #obs to
bene6t the entire organization'
Finally! wor)*0ow clesign and organization structure have to be
understood in the conte&t of how an organization has decided to
comete' 7oth wor)*0ow design and organization structure can be
leveraged to gain cometitive advantage for the 6rm! btit how one does
this deends on the 6rm4s strategy and its cometitive environment'
.nalyze an OrganizatlOh&
-tructure and &%Por!>'QOR