the best of both worlds? making the most of an organisational structure
DESCRIPTION
Organisational structuresTRANSCRIPT
The best of both worlds? Making the most of an organisational structure
Melissa Bradley – University of KentChloé Gallien – University of Kent
So who are we? (1)So who are we? (1)• Melissa Bradley
– Faculty Administration Manager, University of Kent
– Formerly Reading and Chester– AUA Member since 2004, Board of Trustee since
2008 and Fellow (since April 2011)– [email protected]
So who are we? (2)So who are we? (2)
• Chloé Gallien– Faculty Administration Manager, University of
Kent– Most recently St Andrews– AUA Member since 2010– Assessor on Postgraduate Certificate in
Professional Practice (PgCert)– [email protected]
Before we start…Before we start…
• Please fill in your details – Email addresses– Name of institution– Role
• So that we can send you revised presentation
• Thank you!
ContextContext
• Our roles were created in 2009 as a consequence of a University wide administration review which recommended that all academic administration services should be brought together under one structure. Our remit is to ensure this works.
• Between the three of us, we have worked in just under 20 different HEIs which all had different structures!
• Also, we have all either lead or been part of a fair few organisational restructures
Research on structures• Buchanan, D. and Hucznyski, A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour (7th ed). London: FT Prentice
Hall.
• Mabey, C., Salaman, G. and Storey, J. (1998) Human Resource Management: A Strategic Introduction (2nd ed) Oxford: Blackwell. (This is the reference for the "yellow slide").
• Storey, J. (2005) “New organisational forms and their links with HR” in Storey, J., Salaman, G. and Bilsberry, J. (eds) Strategic HRM Theory and Practice: a reader, (2nd ed), London, Open University/Sage.
• Bunting, M. (2005) “Missionary Management” in Storey, J., Salaman, G. and Bilsberry, J. (eds) Strategic HRM Theory and Practice: a reader, (2nd ed), London, Open University/Sage.
• McKenna, E and Beech, N. (2008) Human Resource Management, a concise analysis, (2nd ed), London, FT Prentice Hall. Chs 3 and 5: Organisational Structure and Organisational Culture respectively.
• A comparative Study of University Systems by Hazel Glover: http://www.mrl.nott.ac.uk/~hazel/documents/Submission/final%20PHD%20document/ABSTRACT.htm
Centralised/Decentralised Centralised/Decentralised SpectrumSpectrum
• Concentration/dispersion of authority and responsibility for decision-making
• Restructure drivers– Expansion (ex: Motorolla)– Change of priority (ex: Microsoft)– Symbolic move
• Many forms of hybrid structures
Centralised/Decentralised Centralised/Decentralised SpectrumSpectrum
• What about your institution?• Strengths/limitations of each type of
structure?
CentralisedCentralisedStrengths Greater control by senior
management team Clear alignment to strategic
objectives Allows economies of scale and
synergies More cost effective Fewer skilled/highly paid managers Less reporting procedures Consistency and standardised
approaches More effective co-ordination Compliance Easier communication Enables in-depth specialist and
functional expertise and skill development
Limitations Decisions piles up on top (hierarchy
overload) Key decision makers removed from
business operations Poor horizontal coordination among
departments and /or empire building Fragmentation of processes Less innovation Risk of limited engagement
DecentralisedDecentralisedStrengths Decisions made faster, at point of action,
by more junior staff Work-load spread allowing top-level
mangers more time for strategic thinking Fosters entrepreneurial, innovative and
creative spirit Enables evaluation of contributions of
various activities Motivates staff entrusted to make
decisions Facilitates development of both
specialists and generalists Facilitates high coordination across
functions within units Allows units to adapt to differences Responsive to client needs Allows fast change in unstable
environment Localised Processes
Limitations Lack of control by senior
management team Slow response time to organisational
changes Risk of conflict between units and
corporate departments Poor horizontal coordination
between units Silo mentality affects view of
organizational goals Less efficient and more costly Risk of inconsistencies across units Risk of less dissemination and sharing
of good practice Localised Processes
Central ServicesMarketing Finance Human
ResourcesStudent Records & Examinations
Timetable Office
De-centralised Services
Head of School
Head of School
Head of School
Head of School
Head of School
University of Kent Admin University of Kent Admin - Before- Before
School Admin
School Admin
School Admin
School Admin
School Admin
Central ServicesMarketing
Finance Human
ResourcesAcademic Division
Estates
De-centralised Services
School Admin
SchoolAdmin
SchoolAdmin
SchoolAdmin
SchoolAdmin
University of Kent AdminUniversity of Kent Admin- After- After
Faculty Administration Manager
Overcoming limitations:Overcoming limitations:Possible SolutionsPossible Solutions
• At Kent e.g. overcoming silos Management Team meetings Specialised Forums Special Interest Groups Faculty all administration staff networking events Divisional Leadership Staff Development Programme Mentors from across Faculties “Fresh pair of eyes” scheme
• Group Work
In conclusion…In conclusion…
• Important to identify prevalent structure/s within your home institution
• Identify main strengths and limitations• Build on strengths• Find creative solutions to overcome limitations
Thank you!Thank you!
Feedback