Is it possible to attain unity and efficiency in dividing your organization?
Managers tend to adapt to these challenges by simply treating different teams or divisions using different approaches (according to the specific needs of each), – but, alas, this usually produces mediocre to poor results. So how does one manage a fragmented organisation? How does it help in minimizing costs and effort of a company? Will it contribute to a positive development in your organisation?
The question is, in my opinion, Is a framented organization can be unified in the same time ... Indeed, a company is dividing in different divisions, and it's not rare that the divisions are not in the same city or country ... And at the opposite, the better way to ensure the development is to have an unified company ... So the idea is : How to link the division, so the employee ?
According to me you shall begin by establish inside your company an ambient who represent it, the same in each division, to insure employees commitment. Then, thanks to some events or internal campaign, made to meet the division, or show and explain them what the other divisions do ... And so the employee will finish by understand that they are linked to each other ... It's just some idea I share there, but that kind of operation will renew there motivation and generate links who will palliate to the fragmentation and provide new ressources in your development ...
Organizations exist with fluency because there are so many various personalities to compliment each other. Each personality will assume it's strengths and weaknesses during change. It has been pointed out to me that a weakness is simply a strength mismanaged or overused.
Any answer should start with understanding the reason and need for dividing. I cam from a group that broke off a new unit for a specific marketing task and new processes. That group maintained a fair amount of autonomy while getting their division off the ground. We then married the organization back together taking best practices from each division and involving people in the plan for future growth. You have some great answers already about communicating each persons role for the organization, the overall plan, and really clear vision, mission, and standard statements from the top down. Lose a link coming down from senior management and it all falls apart.
Coaching and Training, by mixing teams and create competitiveness in the work environment, reorganize it according to the Vertical Model, develop the KPI's according to the individuals achievement, team achievement and Organizations achievements, Identify the pessimists and create a plan for their improvements, utilize the 360 feedback to those individuals who do not come up to standards
There cannot be a simple "yes" or "no" answer to this question. It depends on what do you want to achieve by "dividing" the organization. There are pros and cons, which will be unique to an organization, certainly not the standard ones. In any case, managers should be not be given totally free hand - it has to be in line with the corporate values and culture.
The results can not be anything better than "mediocre to poor", if division is done and responsibilities distributed without ensuring the competence of managers and clear corporate guidelines.
Dividing an organization is probably not the real key to efficiency. It is more relevant to well choose partners and people to work with.
In any interpersonal relationship, to understand people is very important. I founded Facial psychology to teach how to read faces and know one's personality quickly. In a few lessons you can have a true advantage and lead the discussion for a mutuam profit.
"The right man at the right place" (man or woman of course).
Fragmentation from economic perspective means dislocating the production through a vast geographic area. But from your post and from the commentaries so far I understand that under fragmentation you mean actual fragmentation in the organisation, that is, decoupling different units and adopting ... some kind of strategy to manage them separately for some probable future cost savings and efficiencies...
Well, if this is your point, I am afraid this is wrong either from strategic perspective and from pure organisational perspective. Not to mention the accounting perspective, where the bottom line will eventually show many red numbers.
The successful firm has a clear corporate strategy, clearly expressed by its mission statement and vision. Any organisational unit has its own business strategy and any line unit has its own operational strategy. These are the three levels of strategy in an organisation. First comes the corporate, then the business and finally the operational strategy. All these strategy must ne ALIGNED. Failing to align the strategy inevitably causes heavy distortions in the organisation which could end with losing competitiveness and ultimately, to physical end of the organisation.
From organisational perspective, cutting ties between units is a sure prescription to stimulate organisational forgetting, which is the opposite of the organisational learning. This severely affects organisational culture and the most valuable people usually leave the organisation with incompatible culture to their own. Fragmentation in this case causes the community of practice to disappear, and this is a loss of yet another power tool for building organisational integrity.
Such an organisation needs an immediate change performed. All shareholders must be informed about the state and to authorise the manager to perform an organisational change. Although very risky (success rate less than 30%) this is the only option. The alternative is organisational death.
It is very possible to attain unity while customizing the treatment of each individual sub-organization. Allow me to be very clear on the primary success factors: 1)While each sub-organization may have a tailored approach, it must be in support of a common organizational objective. (What is your business strategy?) 2). Each sub-organization must understand how it fits into the overall organization and what their contribution is. (What is my group's role in achieving that business strategy?) (3) While there may be individual sub-organizational metrics, there must be several common metrics that are shared amongst multiple sub-organizations. (How will we/success be measured?) Case in Point: Customs and Border Protection of Homeland Security was built from three primary operational agencies (Border Patrol, Air & Marine Interdiction, and Customs). Each has different mission sets and measures, wear different uniforms, have different unions, etc. etc. However, across time, the leadership of CBP built both individual and combined force metrics to support a newly stated mission of "reducing the cross-border movement of illegal materials while facilitating legal travel and trade"...a mission that has nearly opposite parts. Each of the groups has a strategic plan, is managed by different senior executives, but share a common goal of apprehending illegal immigrants and contraband and helping legal travelers and trade partners. If you would like to know more about the full scale integration of an organization such as this, let me know... I have about 12 examples of small, medium and global sized organizations that profit from having different teams, managed through different approaches but focused on a common, global mission.
You have to take inventory of the culture of the organization and then address the staff and see where there level of commitment is to the organization. Unity starts with just that UNI (You & I) & INU (I & You). A effort to meet people where they are and build the team from there!
how does one manage a fragmented organisation? - Simply by maximizing on the skill set of the ones that you are remaining with, this will show how you value them and they will tend to contribute much more as they will look at themselves and appreciate the fact that they have been valued to work at that particular division still. Working with employees not commanding.
How does it help in minimizing costs and effort of a company? - Frankly you only need a particular number for a job, I believe its all about efficiency and ability to be able to know who did what.
Will it contribute to a positive development in your organisation? - It will if you show a positive sign to it. Explaining to the employees the reason for the particular fragmentation, and telling them this is now an opportunity for them to show their value to the entity.