I have decided to research a Canadian-based company called
Precision Nutrition which is a “research-driven, web-based coaching community” (Precision Nutrition website, n.d.).
It is no secret that the health industry
is a lucrative business and competition is very aggressive. Everyone wants to lose weight and get
fit. There are books, websites, local
programs, online programs, college programs and seminars that all compete to
offer health-related services. Precision
Nutrition was created because there was a strategic need to revamp the
nutrition and fitness industry. To
answer the dilemma of yo-yo dieting, fad diets and other fitness crazes that
did not deliver results, the company Precision Nutrition was created (Precision Nutrition website, n.d.).
What makes this company stand out is that they practice a concept
called Holacracy which is “a new way of running an organization that removes
power from a management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles. The
work can then be executed autonomously, without micromanagement” (Holacracy website, n.d.). Some of the key features of this company is
the use of diverse “world-class coaches, counselors, physicians, nutritionists,
health scientists, technologists, and creative thinkers” from all over the world that provide
personalized coaching services on health and fitness. (Precision Nutrition website, n.d.). Holacracy
differs from traditional management because first of all, titles are
non-existent and are instead replaced by roles (Precision Nutrition, 2014). This is one of the characteristics of a holacratic
business model. “Roles are defined
around the work, not people, and are updated regularly” and employees will hold
multiple roles (Holacracy website,
n.d.). Whereas in traditional
companies, the work is “organised along functional specialisms” and “therefore the
specialisms do not really talk to each other as this is left for higher
leadership” (Obolensky, 2014, p. 23).
Strategically, this business model
flattens the organizational structure and gives power back to the employees. For example, complex decisions are not made by
some upper-level manager who is four tiers removed from the actual problem. Instead, Phil Caravaggio, explains that complex
decisions are made by “the person in the best possible position to make that
decision” (Precision Nutrition,
2014).
My organization does have a more traditional organizational
structure. We follow a hierarchal format
with each region being run by a leadership team. I answer to my boss, who answers to her boss,
and so on and so forth. Because I am on
the lowest end of the pyramid, I am not aware of what goes on at the higher
levels of our organization. They make it
very clear to us that we do not need to be implicated in those decisions. Our organization works on a “need to know”
basis. Although we do have opportunities
to present our opinions, thoughts and ideas during conferences and townhall
meetings, I am not sure how much weight our feedback carries on an individual
basis. However, the cumulative feedback
from each individual and campus, if noteworthy enough, is considered and I have
experienced the changes that this feedback has affected.
I feel my organization could benefit if it embraced a more complex
adaptive system (Obolensky, 2014).
The mere environment that we work in is complex
and dynamic. Embry-Riddle Worldwide has
over 150 campuses. Each campus has its
own unique problems due to geographical, political and procedural differences. For example, some campuses are more restricted
on how they market their courses then others depending on which military
installation they are on and which military branch they are serving. It is almost impossible to have all the same
policies and practices on each campus due to these differences. Although the ERAU Worldwide campus does have a
set of general policies and procedures that governs all of us, many other strategic
decisions we make (especially when it comes to marketing or classroom courses)
must be catered to the restrictions of each campus. In this aspect, I sometimes feel that giving
each campus a little more autonomy and ability to make decisions would help us
grow and would help reduce a lot of the frustrations we have dealing with our
leadership teams. The decision-making
process can also sometimes be slow as we have to follow the proper chain of
command.
I feel that the appropriate actions our organization should take
to move forward towards a more complex adaptive system would be a complete
restructuring of the roles of each employee. Unfortunately, our organization has its roots
in a very military-influenced environment, with a large percentage of the
organization being ex-military, making even a change from a functional silo
stage to a matrix stage more
complicated (Obolensky, 2014). However, one feature of the complex adaptive
system that I have noticed our organization implement is the use of teams. We are no strangers to forming teams for
specific goals which then dissipate once the goal has been met. For example, my Director is currently part of
a dynamic team that is in charge of creating a New Employee Hire Standards
manual. The team is formed by a diverse group, each contributing their
knowledge and experience to create this manual.
There have been many other teams that have been formed for different
functions and to attack different problems within the organization. I think a move towards using more team-based
strategies would definitely move the organization towards the right direction.
I think another improvement the organization could make is a move
towards more transparency. Sometimes,
especially those of us on the bottom, feel that we are the last to find out
about changes that could directly affect us.
It feels sometimes like there is a shroud of mystery surrounding the
organization and it can lend itself to a lack of trust with leadership. But this is to be expected from a very
top-down traditional business structure. Obolensky (2014) explains the importance of
clarity when it comes to strategy. According
to Obolensky (2014), “clarity means that everyone in the organisation
understands the overall big picture strategy and how they fit within it” (p. 29).
In conclusion, I feel that it will take some drastic changes to
move our organization towards a complex adaptive system given the dynamic differences
in geography as well as the social and political differences within the 150
locations. An entire restructuring of
the entire culture of our organization would have to be considered before
making that drastic kind of transition. For now, we are slowly making small
progressive steps such as becoming more financially transparent, formation of
strategic teams to address particular issues and the unification of all the
campus through streamlined processes and procedures.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment