Structural Disintegration: Causes and Consequences

Structural Disintegration: Causes and Consequences Author(s): Satinder Gill and Madhavi Mehta Reviewed work(s): Source: Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jul., 1999), pp. 85-97 Published by: Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27767636 . Accessed: 27/04/2012 00:42 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. http://www.jstor.org IJIR,Vol. 35, No. 1, July 1999 STRUCTURAL COMMUNICATION AND CAUSES DISINTEGRATION: CONSEQUENCES Satinder Gill and Madhavi Mehta INTRODUCTION Since last decade or so, with the advent of Globalisation, organizations have been fightinghard for their survival. To meet the competitive been adopting Total Quality have of organizations requirements globalisation, various like restructuring, strategies re-engineering, organizations have However, restructuring. HRD, Management, ISO 9000,etc. structure their up spruced there is a very vital area which Many through most of the organizations have failed to look into. It is the effectiveness of structure the management of the organization. One of themost frequentlydiscussed issues in organisations is dissatisfaction of the employees regarding handling of their grievances, problems, issues and queries. The issue but little concern and realization ubiquitous, circles management about its causes and appears to be is there in the the impact on that it has the organization. An alarming feature of this issue is that it has been acting destroying as a hermit themanagement term consequences productivity, Satinder Mehta Research, Gill of which performance is a Ph.D. student is a faculty ofOB-HRD Mumbai. and organizations structure of the organizations, in many and at M.S. has been the long quite often lead to decline effectiveness. organizational University, Baroda, and Ms. at Somaiya Institute ofManagement in We Madhavi Studies and Indian Journalof IndustrialRelations 86 termitas StructuralDisintegration.This process isnot usually visible during good timeswhen business is booming and the issue gets side-tracked of monetary because and satisfaction other materialistic benefits that theworkers enjoy Workmen and other employees forgetabout theirreal grievances during good business times as they are monetarily the same but contented, is blunder often committed by themanagement too,by not giving immediate and proper to the issue of lack of grievance redressal attention and other related issues. The issue rakes up, especially when the times are tough for the organization and grievances of employees reach all time high. The impact of structuraldisintegration is felt the most chaos times and such during it creates a situation of anarchy, and disorganisation. Structuraldisintegrationis thegradual process of breakdownof the functional utility and performance value of various levels of the structure (such as supervisors, officers,managers and other management senior executives of the organization), due to various causes attributable to the management, the workers structural disintegration management, and workers their unions.The and is gradual their union. of process and is abetted by the No single party can be blamed solely for the disintegration because all the parties are equally responsible for the disintegration of themanagement structure. It is not only the issue of the grievance redressal that becomes inadequacy a cause for structural of the management but it is the disintegration, structure to handle the issues, projects and decision-making at the level that they should be In Indian handled that leads to structural disintegration. at it is that different organizations quite frequentlyobserved people levels tryto shrug off their responsibility or shy away from taking decisions because of various reasons and push these to some other person or level. This shrugging off is generally seen at lower levels, i.e. at the supervisory level, but quite often managers also get messed up in this imbroglio.As thisprocess spreads its tentacles to all parts of the organization, it becomes a characteristic of the organization culture. Little is the realization that this startsweakening management structure. extent because management The management is responsible the to a great of its failure to redress this issue and make structure strong to handle all the situations at 87 Comrnimkations their unions and later on, workers level. However, appropriate exploit thisweakness by surpassing supervisory level for settling or their grievances issues. This and other taking decisions regarding work of structural is the point where the process related disintegration begins and, if not arrested at this level, itmay gradually engulf other levels, too. DISINTEGRATION STAGES OF STRUCTURAL PROCESS Following is the description of various stages of structural disintegration process. Stage 1: The root cause of structural disintegration and characteristic featureof this stage is the failureof themanagement to define and structure, its usefulness to the the management employees to them as well as to the organization and communicate themodus operandi of approaching it.Further, the failure to train themanagement cadre in the areas of grievance handling, problem proactive solving, and decision-making crisis precipitate the problem. management Stage 2: The inabilityand the failureof the employees at lower in the management cadre meet the expectations, grievances, to take decisions, the resolve the employees regarding related problems, direct and manage levels their personal as work as well advise theemployees properly, are thecharacteristicfeaturesof the second stage. It involves behaviours such as giving vague excuses, postponing thedecision, passing iton to theotherperson, avoiding situations immediate demanding intervention, procrastination, etc. Stage 3: This stage is characterised by the breakdown of the formal channels of conflict resolution, grievance handling, etc. Here, the issues are directly addressed to the higher levels of the management, the lower superseding levels, reducing their work to that of a messenger, carrying out the instructions of the top management and informing them about the daily developments regarding work and Stage 4: During management other structure related issues. this stage, the activities gradually get reduced of the whole to resolving the Indian Journalof IndustrialRelations 88 grievances, taking thedecisions that should be taken at the lower levels,giving the instructionsthatshould be given by thesupervisors and the officers at the lower levels. Their work also includes mundane activities, such as to day the day supervising activities and allotting the assignments (that should be done by the lower level officials).Over and above all these,managing the supervisors and the officers and helping them tomanage the operations, continue to be part of theirduties. Stage 5: Frustrated and depressed, because ofnot being allowed to exercise theirpower and perform theirduties, the supervisory and other level employees get labelled by thehigher levels in the cadre management as non-committal and indecisive. The higher levels keep pressurising the supervisory and other lower levels of management to be more involved and committed, yet, shy away fromgiving them the requisite authority.This results in slow but sure isolation of the lower level employees in themanagement structure from the mainstream, structure. management the whole thus, weakening Stage 6: The workers and theirunion, eitherdue to compulsion or for theirulteriormotives, try tomake the lower level of the structure non-functional. the lower structure level is due compulsion to meet the workers' to the inability The expectations of and resolve theirproblems effectively.This compulsion unintentionally makes the lower motive of the workers' constant pressure functional. This because vulnerable levels also In addition, the ulterior to keep under the management non in the lower levels becoming non-functional. unions results one of the most crucial stages stage becomes from here on the structure of the management becomes to the whims and fancies of theworkers and their union. Stage 7: The workers and their unions startusing thisweak link towards their advantage by either directly approaching the higher authorities or compelling the lower cadre to ask for the higher order interventions.With increase in frequency of seeking higher order interventions, the General Manager and Vice President level structurealso gets dragged intomatters thatshould have been handled at the supervisory or officers' level. Thus, the process not only gets increased in the frequency of its occurrence 89 Conmumications but also involves higher and higher levels of the structure for interventions. If the frequencyof seeking higher level intervention by theworkers and their union increases, gradually themiddle level management also becomes to some non-functional extent. Although such eventualities are not very frequent examples, however, they do occur especially when the company is passing through tough times. Stage 8: The structure looses its purpose and the employees slowly overlook of certain the existence categories of management structure that they should approach firstwhenever they need to seek mangerial support. The lower level structure also becomes apathetic towards these employees because they start feeling neglected and develop an aversion both for theworkers and for thehigher levelmanagement. It adversely affectstheproductivity, effectivenessand health of the organization in long run. Its effects can be seen on minute observation and these effects slow magnified form in the times of crisis. up in Stage 9: It furtherleads to thedecision-making authoritypushed up to the top management cadre, i.e. centralisation gets preferred over decentralisation. It acts as fuel to the fire,bymaking thewhole function specific, that involves just carrying and does not involve instructions mechanically management's on the structure meant their whole any decision-making part. Thus, to carry out various functions right from planning, organizing, down-under structure out directing, controlling, supervising and decision-making gets restrictedto carryingout only specific instructionsat thebehest of the management. Stage 10: The levels that have disintegrated have suffered erosion, accept the outcome as the reality, start perceiving the limitedwork as their only function/responsibility,decline from accepting any otherwork allotted to themby citing their specific functions followed over long period of time, oppose any change supposed to be brought in their jobs, oppose flexibility inwork, reflect/appear as being the ones who have been exploited fromall the sides and put theblame and responsibility on others, assume apathetic outlook to all the genuine problems faced by the act as hermit and the workers, management and as friction during the times of growth. in the times of crisis Indian Journalof IndustrialRelations 90 Structural Disintegration might be there inmost of the organizations in varying degrees. The various issues highlighted in thedifferentstages are experienced bymost of theorganizations at one or the other of time or might be a constant feature. period seen as a process to be structural has of disintegration The phenomenon and not in isolation.It cannot always be totalbut itscollectiveimpactis highly disturbingand that iswhy thephenomenonhas to be studied empiricallyingreater detail. CASE an STUDY To support the StructuralDisintegration Theory, case study of was organization conducted. The is a medium organization sized engineering firm located in a B class city inWestern India. The organization, was which once considered among in topmost its field of operations, today is battling for survival. The company has got state of art technology,well-designed job and assembly line and more since However, decline owing in the business. than 35 years of rich experience the last couple of years the company has been on to various factors. in the market Recession and marketing, boomerang industry,lack ofworking funds, ineffective of important strategic decisions have of decline the However, organization as it has been, had the organization structure management been instrumental in its fall. as fast could not have been It's strong internally. the years and under had weakened over been thepressure of testing situations. Although through infancy and adulthood the company did well-business wise, but management could not sustain the same discipline, atmosphere and climate which was established during its infancy stage. Its impact was seen occassionally and intermittentlyduring adulthood stage, in the formof labour problems and work stoppages. However, the testing times broke the superficial harmony and brought the company to a point of no return. Several episodes and examples are enumerated below, which will reiterateand justifythe concept and theory of structural disintegration. -At the infancy-growth stage of theorganization thepersonnel manager and other managers were very particular rules and regulations, etc. which helped decorum and discipline in the organization. about discipline, in establishing good However, as the Comrmmications 91 organization grew from infancy stage to adulthood and maturity and other departmental the succeeding personnel managers were and to continue officers unable the same practices managers stage due to shiftinpriorities and general lax attitude towards discipline and rules of the organization. The new found laxitymade the workers and other employees highly troublesome. They started on various the supervisors, officers and managers issues questioning to and interfered in their functioning. This relentless attack was see them in a a later a was at situation which stage pathetic situation of their and management's The management making. not could build decorum rationally. Between the extremes of overstrict and lax approach, the gap was big enough to compel breakdown and disorganization. - Supervisory cadre which forms themost important linkage between workers and themanagement could not perform its functions effectively.Firstly,quite a number of supervisors were promoted fromworker category, as is quite frequently the case in most of the Indian organizations. In case of quite a number of to their elevation cadre was supervisors, supervisory as and supervisors the case by other workers being to various attributable clandestine promotion, often cited of pseudo reasons. Furthermore, themanagement failed to induct them properly to the functionsof supervisors throughproper trainingand exposure to areas ofmanaging work like planning, organizing, directing, controlling, reporting and other related areas like grievance handling and maintaining discipline, etc. Infact themanagement failed to bring them out of theworkers' mind-set. This resulted into failureon part of the supervisors to functioneffectively.Itwas this cadre and disposal which could not function as a resource for the management which resulted inquite a number ofproblems, ranging from failure tomaintain discipline to failure in quick execution of work orders. The supervisors became so weak kneed that in times of crisis they refused to carryon certain orders of themanagement and failed to report about people damaging production - of the organization. was that also not sensitive about problems The management were their problems. supervisors facing and did not try to address Indian Journalof IndustrialRelations 92 tomanage of training and preparing the supervisors their in started involved issues functions, managers getting directly Instead which had tobe managed by the supervisors. This furtherallowed to wash-off supervisors a few However, quite their hands supervisors from taking responsibilities. even felt and marginalised isolated because theywanted to contribute towork. Itmeant that the less committed alongwith got packed practices made supervisors, along, and with passage them too like other the sincere one's also of time the system and supervisors. With the passage of time, supervisors became non-functional and decision initiative, making, planning, controlling was concerned. Unless a of plans implementation production push was did not get done. effected The from managers, the work as far as workers had also started overruling the supervisors by directly approaching themanagers for things that should be handled by the supervisors. later occasionally, However, Initially this happened on managers more in this started getting involved frequently. Instead of probing the reasons for this new development, the to get to the root cause of it. In did not bother seriously managers a way, were to a great extent for the mangers also responsible disintegration structure. - The workers' the management of this very important part of management union also had structure, which its vested gave interests the workers in breaking the freedom tooperate as per theirdesire and stillgo scot free.Thiswas gradually leading to decline in production and productivity, spread of and unrest and a general atmosphere of indiscipline disorganization. management in the years of good business However, and so needed of the workers the total co-operation it did not give much attention towhat was going very wrong in was the organization. Since the business good and organization at an had to meet the orders, overtime was given unimaginable rate. The workers, the need of the very cleverly understanding slowed down their production the normal company, during hours and than worked to complete overtime the work. working non the supervisory Since been cadre had rendered already went functional by the mangement and the workers, these things unnoticed and unpunished at that time. Even if it got noticed by Coriwnmiadions 93 the supervisors, they did not report about it because of obvious reasons was to regret about itmuch of isolation. The organization time when the the of later, workers, during extremely poor business, at first and than started started attacking the managers attacking the top management. had lost the Management already of taking corrective the supervisors and opportunity only made also started questioning measures and workers had not but had officers non-functional, and attacking the authority of the managers. -With thebusiness gone and salaries,wages and other benefits workers started attacking the topmanagement being compromised, etc. The for its wrong failure in marketing, strategies, policies, were no more listened to by the workers level managers middle and they started demanding replies from topmanagement Directors. For the mistake that the management committed and by not checking the disintegration of themanagement structure, top management had topay dearly and that too very early in the crisis. was structure been that, had themanagement important thing not would have serious assumed the strong proportion. problems The the declining business, During management's and the weakened above and theory structural disintegration had the the organization. Moreover, to implement crisis intervention strategies to the crisis. structure added down-under effects devastating The on failure case our study supports case The concept. study structural reflects disintegration that structural disintegration, ifnot addressed to,can be highly expensive in some Even stituations. production, CAUSES it has otherwise and productivity OF STRUCTURAL The causes of structural culture effects very damaging of the organization. on DISINTEGRATION disintegration can be varied in different organizations. Some of the causes that are frequently thought of as being 1. which responsible for structural don't have the powers is one of the most are as under: important causes means It that people disintegration. on their own at their level. to take decisions of empowerment results into structural Lack disintegration Indian Journalof IndustrialRelations 94 This pushes thedecision-making process to the other level,which in turnmight be pushed furtherup due to the same reason. This means is concerned. decision-making as far as is totally dysfunctional A ripple effect of the lack of decision structure that the lower making authority is generally the apathetic attitude of the lower levels inhandling grievances and other such issues that should be dealt at their level. This maHes these levels ofmanagement just an "eye wash" 2. without much of functional Lack of a well-defined value. is grievance handling procedure the that weakens aspect inherently important are not structure. very particuar management Firstly, managements another about emphasising the role thateach level has toplay inhandling the grievances. At times a formal system is established but over a period of time the systembecomes meaningless because ofmeddling by the union and the lack of perseverance and conviction of the management to strictly enforce the system. The grievances and other issues then, instead of coming through the proper channel, are either directly entertained by the managers or they are compelled intodoing so. The flexibilityadopted by themanagement might be for facilitation,but this facilitationoften gets converted into a practice leading to the breakdown of the system.This then becomes the reason for the structural disintegration with the workers, union and other employees directly approaching the for the settlement of their higher levels in themanagement or issues. for related other Understandably it is difficult grievances to enforce the system and still provide flexibilityand facilitation. But with sensitivity, be sustained. 3. perseverance and conviction the system can Lack of problem solving abilities is another reason for is of the role of management to equip of the management tantamount The importance. structure to deal with the problems itsmanagement encountered structural disintegration. Here again failure by themmakes themvulnerable when facedwith such situations. And so instead of problem-solving theymight try to avoid the problems, postpone them, invent their own excuses/defence mechanisms to dissuade the employees or shrug itoff.This results in piling up of frustrationamong the employees and they try to find out otherways/sources for settling of theirproblems. Such 95 Comrmnk?tions people thus lose theirfunctionalvalue and instead of contributing to the organization's goals act as hermits by adding up to the problems already existing. Lack of problem-solving abilitiesmight be found at any level and of the manaagement is far the issue serious than it is anticipated tobe. The levelswherein these abilities are and become non-functional compromised in the structural disintegration organization. 4. to share Failure decisions, with management policy creates a sense to contribute information issues, important regarding etc. by the top future plans, strategies, structure levels of the management different of confusion among accordingly. A very these as employees to the direction inwhich theyhave tomove andmanifest theirbehaviours and approaches serious matter experienced by most of the organizations is the information that theworkers and the employees get through the grapevine in the organization. More often than not, these informations are near to perfection. The issue here is not of getting the information,but of the sources from where it is got. course In normal the management structure should get this information from the top management draw accordingly themanagement and plans. their approaches structure gets these informations and other employees it becomes management, but very organizations, have on the people management rather than getting them from the top a of the This exists in most problem. that it can few realize the consequences who strucuture. form the important part of the and trust on the part of openness, transparency to also leads structural top management disintegration. 5. and when However, from theworkers Lack of the actions of the workers The systematic attack and deliberate their unions also play a vital role in structural disintegration. of Howsoever strong the structure might be, the ulterior motives 6. and some elements can do a lot of damage to themanagement structure. In gist, structuraldisintegration is caused by lack of sensitivity of the top management towards the functional and performance value of the structure.This might be because of failure on their part to critically assess /evaluate the consequences resulting out of Indian Journalof IndustrialRelations 96 This has to be compared structural disintegration. that accrue to the organization when structural contained. OF STRUCTURAL CONSEQUENCES to the advantages disintegration is DISINTEGRATION It is important that structural to know the consequences can have on the organization. is little doubt There disintegration are for the organization, that the consequences counterproductive but the degree of their impact might be felt differently in the organizations depending upon theirsize, business, internalstrength sensitivity, support from the government, are enumerated below: of the consequences and resources, etc. Some 1. The effectiveness,health, productivity and performance of the organization is affected because of disruption or breakdown of activities at one or several 2. is breach There in the structure. levels in communication network with information from above not able to reach the bottom and themessages from the bottom not able to reach to the top because of failure at the lower and middle levels structure. This of the management leads tomany problems that can have far reaching impactwithin the organization. 3. and It can give rise to labour unrest related issues and problems other because of the grievances and union of the workers not being given proper attention.This can furtherlead todisruption in production propagation activities, of unhealthy prevalence of unhealthy climate and practices. 4. The managers and other higher levels in the structuremight get excessively involved in theday to day activities resulting into failure on their part to carry out creative and constructive work and planning. This can have further impact on their efforts to develop strategies forsurviving in the competitivemarket. Usually, the managers get stretched to their wits' end because of excessive pressure from the top to do theirmanagerial duties and from the bottom to solve the shop-floor bickerings and issues. This affects their productivity, resulting often be counterproductive. into stress and, in the long run, can 97 Commurwations 5. The shop flooroperations might get affectedbecause of the isolation of the supervisory cadre/their inability to act as the connecting link between and the top management It the workers. can lead to delays in the execution of thework orders/jobs which can have its ripple effecton the other operations, thus, creating a delay in the whole on time. process of meeting the customers' requirement 6. Itde-motivates employees inmany cadres leading to fall in theirproductive output, abets unrest among the employees and in might lead to the employees isolating themselves from,putting their authentic efforts. 7. It can create major problems for themanagement during the times of business and other crisiswhen whole energies and concentration of themanagement should be on drawing plans and strategies However, demands management to counter the challenges/exigencies is not co-operative if the structure are can not met, they to settle their issues turn and of the business. and the workers' the pressure grievances on the first. The mangement will, therefore,not be able to concentrate fully on can making strategies for takingup thebusiness challenges, which become highly counterproductive and risky for the organization. CONCLUSION Structure, as is known, has great influence on the functioning of theorganization. It is similar to the functionplayed by our body structurein termsof smooth functioningof our body.Management structureis like the spinal cord.Any problem facedby any vertebrae of the spinal cord has directbearing on the functioningof thewhole body. Similarly, breakdown/disintegration at any level of the mangement has serious and long term implications for the performance and stabilityof theorganization. This simple analogy of structural disintegration the importance given above explains on the organization. and its influence should, Managements therefore,take the issue of structuraldisintegration seriously and should plan strategies to keep the structurestrong and functional.