Why you might want to burn your organizational chart?

[Robert Hartigan]

Management lesson good enough to share.

http://www.bnet.com/2422-13731_23-348209.html

[Spike]

Disagree on the fundamental issue.  Of course workers are going to be talking with each other, however he never mentioned that the Bosses would be told they are working outside their department.

This is a great business structure model, but not military.  Not saying that "if it is not military" is wrong, but we stress "Chain of Command" in CAP. 

[Short Field]

It applies even to the military.  I ran a Ops Branch in one J staff and worked directly with counterparts on other J staffs, lower level commands, the Pentagon, and other defense agencies.

I understood my boss made policy and approved major resource commitments.  I was expected to work within that policy and go forth and make it happen.  Keeping the boss informed  as to what was going on was key.   I wasn't micromanaged, but then I made it a point to ensure my boss was never surprised.   A full and current Roladex file was critical.

[A.Member]

Presenter seems confused on the purpose of an org chart.  They aid in identifying roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships.  It is not to illustrate communication networks.

Personally didn't find it to be a particularly compelling "management lesson". 

[EMT-83]

+1

Can you imagine all communications being routed through the chain of command? This wouldn't work in the business world or CAP. If I went to my manager with every little issue that required a decision, I can pretty much guarantee that I'd be shown the door.

In squadron life, my commander doesn't need to know about every conversation I have with Wing staff. I don't need to be involved with every decision made by my operations officer. Progress reports and occasional summaries are just fine for day to day matters. As stated before, never let your boss be surprised. Also, if I screw up, I want to be able to present my side of the story first!

[RiverAux]

Presenter seems confused on the purpose of an org chart.  They aid in identifying roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships.  It is not to illustrate communication networks.

Well, he did say that stuff still mattered and the traditional organizational chart still applied for that sort of thing.  However, even if he was really discussing communications networks, his point really only applied to certain types of companies and certain levels of employees.  The receptionist isn't likely to be working with somebody from the assembley line on a special project, for example. 

That being said, CAP, when functioning in its ES capacity, does blow up the org chart since every mission is staffed and manned by a different set of people each mission, and often throughout the same day.  And these people are from multiple units within the Wing or sometimes including outsiders. 

[Eclipse]

Presenter seems confused on the purpose of an org chart.  They aid in identifying roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships.  It is not to illustrate communication networks.

Personally didn't find it to be a particularly compelling "management lesson".

+1  An Org chart is not an operational flow tool, it only shows who gets the final say about what.

What he actually illustrates are the circular reporting relationships which tend to kill companies and large organizations - people have to go outside their chart, and thus outside the authority of their manager for information or input, and thus all sides can say "not my problem".

[Short Field]

The communciations chart actually shows the data flows in the organization.  Data flow = where info comes from, who modifies it, where does it go, and who actually uses it.   That is a key thing to understand in designing an organization.  So the comm network approach is useful.  However, it is only useful in designing an organization so that you don't have elements working at cross proposes and ensure that the correct data flows to the right decisionmaker. 

[ZigZag911]

The distinction is between "chain of command" and "avenues of coordination & communication".

The first needs to be clearly defined, and affects policy, direction, vision, definition of the mission.

The second is more flexible, and affects planning, problem solving, and accomplishing the mission.

[lordmonar]

I don't think the presenter was confused.....what he was pointing out is that the Org Chart is NOT the buisness unit.

He was pointing out that if you are the BOSS and want to make a reoganisation of you buisness unit you have to consider all the other links each individual has to deal with before you make any changes.

And this does apply to the miliary and CAP.  You often have a lot of "dashed lines" within a unit.  The CP guy to the AE guy.  Character Develpoment to CP and the squadron Chaplain.  ES to Comm.

And you have even more when you look at how your squadron works with the group/wing.  Ops often talks directly to the ES officers.  AE to AE.  Comm to Comm.  If we followed the paper org chart everything would have to go to your commander then down to the unit commanders to be transmitted to the unit level guy.

But if you are a squadron CC and you want to shake up your organisation....you have to consider those dashed line links before you make any changes.

[RiverAux]

Well, thats not really relevant at all to CAP since we have almost no flexibility to "shake up" our organizational chart. 

[lordmonar]

Sure you can...20-1 is not set in stone.

[RiverAux]

That may or may not be the case (in practical terms, try getting it past a CI), but the simple fact is that we have certain positions we are allowed to have and there are not that many logical ways that they could be shuffled, especially considering that at squadron level they are almost never all filled with working people anyway.  And at the wing level, there is not much practical need to reshuffle things.  The mostly flat chart makes the most sense at that level except in a few small areas.  Sure, one could make up all sorts of "departments" grouping somewhat similar positions together, but that just creates another layer of staff officers that aren't needed. 

[lordmonar]

We passed our SUI with flying colors....and we have a non-standard squadron org chart.  In fact we high lighted it to the inspectors!

We have a commander, deputy commander for seniors, a deputy commander for cadets and a executive officer.

The XO has admin/personnel/finance under here, I (the DC Seniors) have comm, logistics, operatons under me and the DC Cadets has the cadets under him.

We look at actual links before we decided who went under who.

[Gunner C]

I had the same setup WIWA cc.  It worked pretty well.  It separates command functions from staff functions and gives oversight for each.

[RiverAux]

Seeing as how non-standard titles were eliminated a few months ago, I'm not sure how such as setup could be done now.

[lordmonar]

Seeing as how non-standard titles were eliminated a few months ago, I'm not sure how such as setup could be done now.

Wing can always fire me!:)

[Short Field]

I think the duty title works as "Administrative Officer" or "Assistant to the Commander" - both legal squadron duty titles.  After that it is just a matter of moving the blocks around on the org chart.

[flyerthom]

Seeing as how non-standard titles were eliminated a few months ago, I'm not sure how such as setup could be done now.

Wing can always fire me!:)

Nope - you'll get moved up the ladder just to watch you better MUUUHHHAAAAWAAAHHH