UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA

College of Business

MNGT 443.501 Dane M. Partridge, Ph.D. Organization Theory and Design OC 3066C Summer III 2005 465-7085 MTWRF 1000-1150a OC 2017 465-1044 (fax) [email protected] http://business.usi.edu/dpartrid/ Office Hours: MTWRF 100-300p and by appt.

INTRODUCTION

This course involves the management challenge of designing organizational structure to facilitate effective performance and achieve competitive advantage given the evolving nature of organizational environments. Issues will include organizational innovation and change; technological change and organizational restructuring; global competition; organizational culture; employee involvement, participative management, and team systems; total quality management; and organizational control, communication, and conflict. Particular attention will be devoted to the implications of information technology and e-business for the structure and design of the 21 st century organization.

Note: MNGT 305, Management of Organizational Behavior, is the prerequisite for this course; MNGT 315, Organizational and Management Development, is recommended as well (but not required).

READINGS

Students should obtain the following book:

Jones, Gareth R. Organizational Theory, Design, and Change, 4e (Prentice-Hall, 2004).

Copies of the text should be available for purchase in the Bookstore. Any other assigned readings will be available from the instructor’s website or the Rice Library online databases. Supplements to the course outline and reading assignments may be distributed during the session.

Much of the information about trends in management that you will obtain as a manager will come from business periodicals, such as the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Fortune. It is important to learn how to read these sources quickly and critically. As you do so, you should keep in mind the following questions: (1) What is the “story” that the article is telling? And (2) What kind of evidence does the article use (should we believe the article’s conclusions)? Note that if you elect to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, you are provided free access to the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition as well.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS, METHODS OF EVALUATION, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

In addition to the required reading assignments, there will be four exams, several individual and group case assignments, and an organizational analysis and written case study. Given that the case assignments are primarily for the purpose of class discussion, any that are turned in late will be penalized by 50% (and any late assignments must be submitted no later than one week following the original due date). The group case assignments will be primarily (although not necessarily exclusively) in-class assignments; any in - class assignment missed by a student due to absence must be submitted within one week. Grading will be determined on the basis of the following weights:

Exams (4 @ 15% each) 60% Organizational analysis 20% Group case assignments and supplemental reading briefings 10% Individual case assignments, supplemental reading briefings, and class participation 10%

Regular attendance is recommended, as the required readings and class meetings are intended to be complements, not substitutes. The required reading is the foundation for the course; the class meetings and cases will build on that foundation. On the exams, students will be responsible for both material covered by the readings and material discussed in class. Students are expected to keep up with the required reading, as assigned, and to come to class prepared for discussion and with any questions concerning the reading. Students are reminded that under the credit hour system a three-credit class requires on average six hours of outside preparation per week during the academic year; during a summer session, this would translate to 18 hours per week. While research indicates that the average U.S. college student spends less time in outside study and class preparation than the instructor might expect, when full-time students devote only part-time effort to their coursework, less-than-desired outcomes may well result.

Students often observe that they would like their classes to “better relate to the real world.” For students to apply what they have learned in the classroom to actual work environments students have responsibility for active, rather than passive, involvement in the learning process. The instructor’s role in active or experiential learning is to serve as a facilitator of student-directed learning, rather than being the provider of teacher-directed instruction. Some have called this a shift from “teaching by talking” toward “learning by doing.” The responsibility for learning is borne by the learner, while the teacher makes resources available and helps the learning process. This instructor’s primary objective with respect to this course is that students will acquire knowledge, skills, and abilities that will make them more competitive in the job market and more effective members of the organizations they join upon graduation.

As one college president has put it, “[I]t isn't enough just to learn -- one must learn how to learn, how to learn without classrooms, without teachers, without textbooks. Learn, in short, how to think and analyze and decide and discover and create…. [W]hile mastery of specific content is important, we want our graduates to learn how to think critically and creatively, express themselves coherently, work collaboratively, and develop a global consciousness…. A college is not a trade school. A college education ultimately must be designed to help students develop the skills needed to become lifelong learners, capable of finding new information, evaluating it, and using it in both the real world and the world of the mind.”

Organizational Analysis

The organizational analysis and written case study will involve collecting and analyzing information about an organization selected at the beginning of the session and studied throughout the course; your findings will be presented to your colleagues during the latter portion of the session. The “Analyzing the Organization: Design Module Assignment” at the end of each chapter in the text provides a framework for your analysis. Your analysis will consist of answers to selected questions from the Design Modules (there are close to 100 questions to choose from at the end of the 14 chapters). Your final report should be typed, double-spaced, 10-12 pages in length (not including title page and references), and is due no later than August 18. You may choose to work in a team of 3-4 students on the project; team reports should be typed, double-spaced, 15-20 pages in length (not including title page and references). Note: this project involves analyzing an organization, not simply describing an organization. In recent semesters students have come to rely too heavily on company-produced information such as that found on the company website. Students are cautioned, therefore, to collect information from a variety of sources – over-reliance on any single source, such as a company website, will negatively affect the evaluation of the paper.

Further details of these requirements and grading procedures will be discussed in class as is necessary. Students are 2 encouraged to stop in during office hours to talk about any problems or suggestions you may have concerning the course, about careers or graduate school, or just about management or things in general. If the scheduled office hours are inconvenient feel free to make an appointment.

WHAT (SOME) STUDENTS HAVE LIKED LEAST…

 “Too many supplemental readings”  “Too many student presentations – boring to listen to and I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be getting from them” o First, the briefings are intended to reinforce students’ analytical and communication skills: every USI business graduate should be able to read a Wall Street Journal or Harvard Business Review article, identify the key points (the implications for managers), and communicate those points effectively to their colleagues. Second, consistent with the active learning approach, if you’re not sure what the point of a briefing is (the “so what”), ask! All supplemental readings are intended to reinforce, elaborate upon, or provide additional examples of material contained in the text and lecture.  “Being randomly called on” o Exams aren’t optional, projects aren’t optional, why should participation be voluntary?

Student Rights and Responsibilities: Academic Misconduct

Truth and honesty are necessary to a university community. Each student is expected to do his or her academic work without recourse to unauthorized means of any kind. Both students and faculty are expected to report violations to academic honesty. USI policies and regulations governing the conduct of students and the procedures for handling violations of these policies and regulations are found in the USI Bulletin and on the Dean of Students' website (http://www.usi.edu/stl/index.htm). Students are reminded of the College of Business expectations regarding the avoidance of plagiarism; plagiarism includes: (1) failing to cite quotations and borrowed ideas, (2) failing to enclose borrowed language in quotation marks, and (3) failing to put summaries and paraphrases in your own words.

(Source: Diana Hacker, A Pocket Style Manual, 2e, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997, p. 92.) Students are specifically reminded that electronically copying text from a source document, such as a web page, and pasting that into one’s own document without putting the borrowed language in quotation marks is plagiarism, even if the source of that language is included in an in-text citation and reference list. Simply put, borrowed language must be set off in quotation marks. Furthermore, borrowed ideas require in-text citation the same as borrowed language. Note well – failure to use appropriate in-text referencing of either borrowed language or borrowed ideas is unacceptable, regardless of the inclusion of a reference list.

Even if language and/or ideas borrowed from a secondary source are appropriately referenced, College of Business faculty expect more from students. Copying and pasting someone else’s words and ideas into a document file does not demonstrate your understanding of the material. Secondary sources are appropriate and necessary for a research project, but your contribution should involve more than simply assembling the words and ideas of others.

THE INSTRUCTOR

DANE M. PARTRIDGE -- Associate Professor of Management; B.A., Michigan State University; M.S., Cornell University; Ph.D., Cornell University. Dr. Partridge's primary teaching and research interests involve human resource management and labor relations. His research has been published in the Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, the Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, the Journal of Labor Research, and the Denver University Law Review. Current research areas include the effect of pay structures on worker attitudes and gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Dr. Partridge has presented management development programs on topics including employee involvement in quality improvement and managing workforce diversity. Dr. Partridge has also taught at Virginia Tech, Radford University, and Roanoke College, and has received several awards for teaching

3 excellence.

COURSE OUTLINE, TENTATIVE SCHEDULE, AND SUPPLEMENTAL READING

Note: only those supplemental readings marked with a “*” are assigned to all; others will be divided for presentation by individual students. Those readings marked with a “@” will be divided for presentation by a pair of students. Readings presentations by individuals or teams should briefly summarize the several key points and implications for managers; these presentations will be expected to make use of a visual aid such as a PowerPoint slide.

1. ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (7/19, 7/20a) *a. “Corporate America Confronts the Meaning Of a ‘Core’ Business,” Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1999. @b. C.K. Prahalad and Venkatram Ramaswamy, “Co-opting Customer Competence,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000. *c. “Dot-coms: What Have We Learned?” Fortune, October 30, 2000.

2. STAKEHOLDERS, MANAGERS, AND ETHICS (7/20b, 7/21) a. “A Push for Reform Along Alaska Pipeline Runs Into Resistance,” Wall Street Journal, November 9, 1999; “Alyeska Finds Harassment of Whistle-Blowers Persists,” Wall Street Journal, September 22, 1999. @b. Philippe Haspeslagh, Tomo Noda, and Fares Boulos, “It’s Not Just About the Numbers,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2001.

3. MANAGING IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT (7/22, 7/25a) *a. Case Study: “Can this merger be saved?” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1999. b. “As the Telecoms Merge and Cut Costs, Service Is Often a Casualty,” Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2000. c. “Does Everybody Have to Own Everything?” Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2000. d. “More Companies Cut Risk by Collaborating With Their ‘Enemies’,” Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2000. @e. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and D. Charles Galunic, “Coevolving: At Last, A Way to Make Synergies Work,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000. @f. Dennis Carey, “A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 2000. *g. “The Barons of Outsourcing,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. *h. “Limits of the New Corporation,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. i. “AT&T Finds Bigger Isn’t Always Better,” Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2000. j. “For Two Car Giants, A Megamerger Isn’t the Road to Riches,” Wall Street Journal, October 27, 2000. k. “Big Mergers of ‘90s Prove Disappointing to Shareholders,” Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2000. l. “Let’s Keep This Exchange to Ourselves,” Business Week, December 4, 2000. m. “Facing Crisis, Media Giants Scrounge for Fresh Strategies,” Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2003. n. “Made to Measure: Invisible Supplier Has Penney’s Shirts All Buttoned Up,” Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2003. o. Mihir A. Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James R. Hines, Jr., “Venture Out Alone,” Harvard Business Review, March 2004. p. “After Landing Huge Navy Pact, EDS Finds It’s In Over Its Head,” Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2004. q. “In Bow to Retailers’ New Clout, Levi Strauss Makes Alterations,” Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2004. @r. Jeffrey K. Liker and Thomas Y. Choi, “Building Deep Supplier Relationships,” Harvard Business Review, December 2004. s. “How Eli Lilly’s Monster Deal Faced Extinction – but Survived,” Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2005. t. “The Laptop Trail,” Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2005.

4. BASIC CHALLENGES OF ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN (7/25b, 7/26) *a. "Tools That Make Business Better and Better," Fortune, December 23, 1996. *b. “Just Think: No Permission Needed,” Fortune, January 8, 2001.

 EXAM I (7/27)

4 5. DESIGNING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: AUTHORITY AND CONTROL (7/28, 7/29a) @a. Sumantra Ghoshal and Christopher A. Bartlett, "Changing the Role of Top Management: Beyond Structure to Processes," Harvard Business Review, January-February 1995. @b. John Pound, "The Promise of the Governed Corporation," Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995. @c. Christopher A. Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal, "Changing the Role of Top Management: Beyond Systems to People," Harvard Business Review, May-June 1995. @d. Chris Argyris, “Empowerment: The emperor's new clothes,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1998. @e. Suzy Wetlaufer, “Organizing for empowerment: An interview with AES's Roger Sant and Dennis Bakke,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1999. @f. Henry Mintzberg and Ludo Van der Heyden, “Organigraphs: Drawing how companies really work,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1999. *g. “The Anti-Control Freak,” Fortune, November 26, 2001. @h. Robert Herbold, “Inside Microsoft,” Harvard Business Review, January 2002. *i. “Ballmer Unbound,” Fortune, January 26, 2004. j. “Despite Revamp, Unwieldy Unilever Falls Behind Rivals,” Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2005.

6. DESIGNING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: SPECIALIZATION AND COORDINATION (7/29b, 8/1) @a. Joan Magretta, “The power of virtual integration: An interview with Dell Computer's Michael Dell,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1998. @b. Durward K. Sobek II, Jeffrey K. Liker, Allen C. Ward, “Another look at how Toyota integrates product development,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1998. @c. Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell. “Desperately seeking synergy,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1998. @d. Thomas W. Malone and Robert J. Laubacher, “The dawn of the e-lance economy,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1998. @e. John Hagel III and Marc Singer. “Unbundling the corporation,” Harvard Business Review. March-April 1999. @f. Michael Hammer and Steven Stanton, “How process enterprises really work,” Harvard Business Review, November-December 1999. *g. “Management by Web,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. @h. Michael E. Raynor, “Lead From the Center,” Harvard Business Review, May 2001.

7. CREATING AND MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE (8/2) @a. Rich Teerlink, “Harley’s Leadership U-Turn,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000. b. “A Different Kind of Public Accounting: One Firm’s Tradition of Goodbye Memos,” Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2002. c. “Report Cites Flawed NASA Culture,” Washington Post, August 26, 2003. *d. Case Study: “Oil and Wasser,” Harvard Business Review, May 2004. e. “How Shell’s Move To Revamp Culture Ended in Scandal,” Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2004. f. “Deal Brings ‘Proctoids’ to ‘Plywood Ranch,’ Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2005.

 EXAM II (8/3)

8. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND STRATEGY IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT (8/4, 8/5a) @a. Ronald N. Ashkenas, Lawrence J. DeMonaco, Suzanne C. Francis, “Making the deal real: How GE Capital integrates acquisitions,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1998. @b. David J. Collis and Cynthia A. Montgomery, “Creating corporate advantage,” Harvard Business Review, May- June 1998. c. “At J&J, a Venerable Strategy Faces Questions,” Wall Street Journal, March 5, 1999. d. “Uneasy Gun Makers Add Gentler Product Lines,” Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1999. e. Donald F. Hastings, “Lincoln Electric’s harsh lessons from international expansion,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1999. f. “Rx for Drug Companies: Get Hitched, Stat!” Wall Street Journal, November 4, 1999; “Mergers Pose Debatable Cure For Diseases Of Drug Firms,” Wall Street Journal, November 12, 1999. 5 @g. Pankaj Ghemawat and Fariborz Ghadar, “The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000. h. Wilfried R. Vanhonacker, “A Better Way to Crack China,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000. *i. “See the World, Erase Its Borders,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. j. “Reversing 80 Years of History, GM Is Reining In Global Fiefs,” Wall Street Journal, October 6, 2004. k. “Retailers’ Appetite for Top Sellers Has Food Firms Slimming Down,” Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2004.

9. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN, COMPETENCIES, AND TECHNOLOGY (8/5b, 8/8) @a. Thomas H. Davenport, “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system,” Harvard Business Review, July- August 1998. *b. David Kirkpatrick, “The Net Makes It All Easier—Including Exporting U.S. Jobs,” Fortune, May 26, 2003.

10. TYPES AND FORMS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE (8/9, 8/10) @a. Suzy Wetlaufer, “Driving change: An interview with Ford Motor Company's Jacques Nasser,” Harvard Business Review, March/April 1999. @b. Clayton M. Christensen and Michael Overdorf, “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000. @c. Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria, “Cracking the Code of Change,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 2000. @d. Eric Abrahamson, “Change Without Pain,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000.

 EXAM III (8/11)

11.ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS: BIRTH, GROWTH, DECLINE, AND DEATH (8/12, 8/15a) @a. Greg Brenneman. “Right away and all at once: How we saved Continental,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1998. @b. Donald N. Sull, “Why good companies go bad,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1999. *c. “The Mechanic Who Fixed Continental,” Fortune, December 20, 1999. d. Amar Bhide, “David and Goliath, Reconsidered,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 2000. e. “Inside the Revolution: Smart Mover, Dumb Mover,” Fortune, September 3, 2001.

12. DECISION MAKING, LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (8/15b, 8/16) @a. Paul Sharpe and Tom Keelin, “How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1998. @b. Sarah Cliffe, “Knowledge management: The well-connected business,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1998. @c. Morten T. Hansen, Nitin Nohria, Thomas Tierney, “What's your strategy for managing knowledge?” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1999. d. “Getting employees to share their knowledge isn’t as simple as installing new software; Just ask Buckman Labs.” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 1999. @e. Etienne C. Wenger and William M. Snyder, “Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000. *f. “Knowledge Worth $1.25 Billion,” Fortune, November 27, 2000. @g. David Garvin and Michael A. Roberto, “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, September 2001. @h. Diane L. Coutu, “The Anxiety of Learning,” Harvard Business Review, March 2002.

13. INNOVATION, INTRAPRENEURSHIP, AND CREATIVITY (8/17) @a. Teresa M Amabile. “How to kill creativity,” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1998. b. “Xerox: The Downfall,” Business Week, March 5, 2001. @c. Robert L. Sutton, “The Weird Rules of Creativity,” Harvard Business Review, September 2001. *d. Jerry Useem, “3M + GE = ?” Fortune, August 12, 2002. @e. Martha Craumer, “The Sputtering R&D Machine,” Harvard Business Review, August 2002. f. “By Learning From Failures, Lilly Keeps Drug Pipeline Full,” Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2004. 6 g. “P&G: Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks,” Fortune, May 31, 2004.

14. MANAGING CONFLICT, POWER, AND POLITICS (8/18)  FINAL EXAM: Friday, August 19

7