Cooperation by mutual adjustment
‘I do my job, you do your job’
A General Managers says “All directors are only interested in their own
goals and do not cooperate in the Management Team meeting. They do
not think out of the interest of the total company. They say they do by
doing their job, but that is not enough…’
Mutual Adjustment
In his book on effective organisations ‘Structures in five’ Mintzburg
differentiates five basic forms of coordination in an organisation. And all
five are always in some way present:
1. Direct supervision.
2. Standardisation of input,
3. Standardisation of throughput,
4. Standardisation of output
5. Mutual adjustment.
1
Production oriented organisations put all effort on creating and
implementing standardised solutions. Of course these solutions raise the
production within a specific timeframe, lower the costs of labor and the
costs of mistakes. Grow of productivity comes with standardisation.
What about the mutual adjustment?
Mutual adjustment makes an organisation really effective. Not only the
simple organisation but actually the most complex organisations only
functions effective and efficient when the members mutually adjust.
How to develop?
Two examples out of two global companies operating in China
with ineffective mutual adjustment and how they tried to make a
change.
‘Director come and decide’
In a project the health/quality assurance director has a discussion with
the director of the project. Both are Chinese, members of the
Management Team. They cannot come to a decision and the quality
manager invites the general director, a Dutchman, to join the meeting
and make a decision.
The directors interpretation
He is new and in the middle of a
development project with this MT.
The production technology did not
change for the last ten years. Not
any challenge, so they could do their
job half sleeping. Now a new
production line is build up, imported
from Europe, the responsibilities for
the MT double, the head count
doubles too. He face questions like:
are the individual members
competent? The MT members
operate only focussed on their own
area. In the new situation they have
to cooperate to get new and better
results. The director want the MT
members to find cooperative
solutions in their mutual cooperation.
He interpreted this example as
competitive behaviour
2
A director changed
‘The two of you are competent and able to solve this problem. I do not
come to the meeting”.
Another interpretation of the incident.
The MT members know three ways to solve conflicts
1. Go on fighting,
2. Win or surrender,
3. Bring the conflict to a higher level in the command hierarchy to solve
it.
The member who went to the director did not want the solutions one and
two so he choose solution three. Probably the other member did not
want one and two either.
Inviting the director is
it a good or a bad
solution?
It is not a bad solution.
Actually it is a very good
one.
Research done on
decision-makingprocedures show that this
way of decision making
leads to the best
solution. Compared were
three decision-makingprocedures: unanimity,
majority and after a
discussion a decision by
the chairman. The last
decision making
procedure lead to the
best solution. Why is
that? In all the other decision making processes most energy is
concentrated on persuading others and getting agreement. The
procedure with a decision by the chairman opens the opportunity for all
to come up with the best ideas, best arguments. Of course the quality of
the decision maker is also an important factor. It is very normal in
Chinese culture to have hierarchy higher persons to decide. It promotes
heavy discussions in front of a decision maker without having to
surrender.
3
The hierarchical orientation for make decisions is a normal practice in
many organisations and it often leads to good decisions.
The choice for solution one, and not for solution two can be seen as
‘taking responsibility for ones area of responsibility’. Giving-in can be
seen as a bad irresponsible choice. Solution three is not a bad one.
A director did not change
A relative independent department of a global company in China has a
Dutchman as a director. He leads his Management Team for seven years.
He will retire and invites one of the Chinese members of his
management team to be in his position. He offers it to several members,
but no one accepts.
He want the Team members to solve more problems in mutually
agreements out of interest for both and of the whole company. His habit
during the seven years of his reign was to have all conflicts between the
departments on his table and he decided. Now he wants to develop the
team to be able to make more mutual satisfying decisions in the
perspective of what is best for all. In a conference designed to practice
this perspective and the skills for mutual-solution-finding they practiced
with real cases. At that moment they created new solutions. The director
did not change his habit and reported several month later: ‘They still
come to me for a decision’.
Agreeing on all steps: solution
four
A procedural one in four steps:
1.Members of the discussion agree on
‘what is the problem?” This includes
all different perceptions of causes and
solutions.
2.Agree on what the result of what
ever solution has to look like. What
are the criteria for a good solution?
3.Gather all optional solutions. Test
these solutions to the criteria and
make a choice for the ‘best solution’
and commit to this solution
4.Implement this solution.
How to level up the competence
for mutual adjustment in a
company?
learn to combine solution three with
solution four. This will level up the quality of the decisions made by the
members themselves.
4
When the maturity of the MT members for solving conflicts of interest is
at a higher level the chairman can delegate the decision making.
You can, do it
And the fifth solution. That is what the director did who changed his
behaviour. He says: ‘solve it yourself, because I trust you can’. What do
they do? He does not know and he does not know the consequents of
their decision. He treats them as mature in solving conflicts of interest.
Wait and see. In learning one can make mistakes.
What can he do next? He has to find a response depending on the
outcome.
He can correct the decision.
He can reinforce all positive behaviours leading to more in mutual
cooperation solved problems in line with the company goal.
He can learn them solution four and for supervising he use solution three
too, hoping to end at a level of solution five as a steady state.
Ton Voogt
October 11 2015.
5