The transformation from a bureaucratic to a matrix organization: A case study of the directorate of Development Finance of the Ministry of Finance of Suriname A Research Paper by:
Raïssa van Varsseveld (student number: FHRISS0409029)
This paper was submitted in order to fulfill the requirements for the Master of Public Administration in Governance for the FHR Institute, the ISS, the International Institute for Social Studies and the Erasmus University Rotterdam
Supervisor: Dr. Paul Breman
§ Acknowledgement This thesis was written as part of the final phase of my Master in Public Administration studies. Through this paper I hope to have created a helpful tool which might contribute to the further developments of the directorate of Development Finance.
However this paper would not have been possible without the support of some people: I would therefore like to thank God for giving me the strength and wisdom to achieve yet another goal in my life and my family and friends for their unconditional support.
Furthermore I would like to thank Dr. Ricardo van Ravenswaay and Drs.Arti Phoelsingh for giving me the opportunity to attend this program. Mr. Hans Lim A Po for his always fatherly support until the very last moment.
My supervisor Dr. Paul Breman for his support and guidance during my ISP research. Dr. Freek Schiphorst and Dr.Marlene Buche for their guidance as well and Mrs. Ollye Chin A Sen of the FHR Institute.
"We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience." Buddha
1
§ Table of Contents List of Tables
4
List of abbreviations
5
§ 1 Research and Design
6
1.1 Introduction
6
1.2 Research Problem
6
1.3 Research objective and questions
7
1.4 Relevance and Justification
8
1.5 Research Methodology
8
1.6 Scope and Limitations
11
1.7 Structure of the Paper
11
§ 2 Literature Review
12
2.1 Introduction
12
2.2 Organizational Structures
13
2.2.1 The Line Organization Structure
13
2.2.2 The Pure Organization Structure
14
2.2.3 The Matrix Organization Structure
15
2.3 Change Management
16
2.3.1 How to motivate change
18
2.4 Overcoming Resistance to Change
19
2.5 Conclusion
21
2
§ 3 Research Results
22
3.1 Research findings of interviews with experts
22
3.2 Research findings of surveys with staff of the directorate of Development Finance
31
§ 4 Key Findings 4.1 Key Findings
39 39
4.2 Implementation of a change and restructuring plan within the directorate of Development Finance
40
§ 5 Conclusions & Recommendations
43
5.1 Conclusions
43
5.2 Recommendations
44
§ 6 Discussion
46
Reference list and Bibliography
47
List of Respondents
49
Appendixes
50
3
§ List of Tables Table 2.2.3.1
16
Table 3.1.1
22
Table 3.1.2
24
Table 3.1.3
26
Table 3.1.4
28
4
§ List of Abbreviations DF = Development Finance IDB = Inter-American Development Bank OD = Organization Development N/A = Not Applicable PLOS = Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation Resp = Respondent
5
§1. Research and Design 1.1
Introduction
This paper focuses on the possible implementation of the matrix organization structure within the directorate of Development Finance. The matrix organization structure is a managing tool which has been around for some time, but which has never been applied in Suriname, especially not within government institutions. This paper focuses on how it works. But before describing how the matrix organization structure works, we will first look at the motive of this research. This dates back to the former ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation (PLOS). In the past, PLOS has played a crucial role in monitoring donor funded projects. For many years PLOS has been responsible for cooperation with donors such as the Dutch, the European Commission, the French and the IDB. PLOS was considered to be the focal point in cooperation with international donors. The core tasks and main focus of this ministry was always in the area of project management. However, on the 1st of September 2010, PLOS was dismantled by decree and it was decided that the majority of the departments of former PLOS would be transferred to the ministry of Finance. This directorate is now responsible for the coordination of donor funded projects, previously the responsibility of the Ministry of PLOS.
1.2 Research problem The directorate of Development Finance is a governmental organization which is now part of the ministry of Finance. Although this organization does practice project management, it is still categorized as a bureaucratic organization. Looking at the directorate of Development Finance the following dimensions of bureaucracy as identified by Weber (Daft, L.2007, p.332) could be recognized:
Hierarchy in decision-making,
Working activities are performed based on standard rules and procedures
Communications are in written form
Tasks are divided and each person has a specialization (Daft, L.2007, p.332)
6
Decision-making takes place in a hierarchical manner and this sometimes forms an obstacle in reaching project deadlines and affects the effectiveness and efficiency in the working performance. After the transformation process from PLOS to the directorate of Development Finance , this directorate has been left in a situation of uncertainty regarding the new organizational structure. For the directorate a more efficient and effective way to operate is looked for and the matrix organization is considered a possible structure. Through this type of structure it would become easier to manage the donor projects. But why implement a matrix organization and not a different organizational structure? How is it supposed to work? And how will the individuals within the organization react to the restructuring of the organization, especially after the drastic changes which occurred over the past months?
1.3 Research objective and questions The objective of this research is to discover what possible challenges the directorate may be confronted with in restructuring the organization from a bureaucratic to a matrix organization. The opinions of experts in the field and of personnel of the directorate will be taken into account.
Main research question What are the constraints for a possible change and restructuring of the directorate of Development Finance from a bureaucratic to a matrix organization?
Sub questions What are the opinions of experts in the field with regard to restructuring, change management and matrix organizations?
How would the experts implement a restructuring plan?
How would the experts deal with a possible resistance to change?
7
How does the staff of the directorate feel about change and a possible restructuring of the organization?
Is the staff familiar with the matrix organization and what are their thoughts regarding the structure?
1.4 Relevance and Justification The relevance of this research is contribution to enhance efficiency, effectiveness in the functioning of the directorate. By taking into account the feedback of the organization members, researcher also got a clear view of their thoughts and opinions, which are relevant for the planning of such a restructuring process. The feedback of experts in the field can give a broader view of the Do’s and Don’ts which should be taken into account when implementing a new structure. Through the opinions of the experts it can also be analyzed whether restructuring is indeed an option for the directorate.
1.5 Research Methodology In order to conduct the research the following methods were used: 1. Literature study
2. Data collection from the field through:
Interviews with experts in the field from both the public and private sector; The researcher made use of structured interviews (Baarda, D. & M. De Goede, 2001, 184) with the selected experts. The background of each expert played a crucial role in the type of questions asked in the interviews. For this research eight respondents were selected of which all were interviewed.
8
The eight respondents were: 1. Six experts from both public and private sector specialized in change management to public sector reform; 2. Two government officials from the ministry of Finance.
All interviewees were contacted either by email or by phone requesting an interview. The questionnaires were sent in advance to each interviewee for preparation. To maintain transparency, it was agreed that after the interview, all respondents would receive a full report of the interview by email to give possible feedback or add possible comments. The first two interviews were not recorded; it was decided later that recording the interviews was a better option, thus the remaining interviews were recorded. Before the start of each interview each interviewee was asked whether he/she objects to recording and all interviewees agreed. Due to “ethical justification” (Baarda, D. & M. De Goede, 2001, 360) it was promised to all respondents that their identities would be kept anonymous
A questionnaire among the personnel of the directorate of Development Finance; In order to prepare the questionnaire the researcher looked up several examples of questionnaires which had been used in previous researches. Based on the advice given by the supervisor, the researcher prepared a questionnaire which consisted of ten questions (see Appendix I). The questions are both open and closed, and beside it the workers also had the opportunity to make their own additional remarks. What has to be mentioned is that this survey is not a validated research however this is not necessary, because this research can be seen as a “descriptive research (Baarda, D. & M. De Goede, 2001, 92)”, in “which seeking relations and giving explanations (Baarda, D. & M. De Goede, 2001, 92)” was not important.
The questions of the survey were all organized in four categories namely:
Category A. Personal Information
9
Category B. The transformation from the ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation to the directorate of Development Finance
Category C: The current organization structure and work situation on the Directorate of Development Finance
Category D: Change within the organization/ working environment
The survey that was conducted was a selective random test (Baarda, D. & M. De Goede, 2001, 150). Therefore the group of respondents only consisted of staff-members who are either on the mid- or higher level of the department. This was done on purpose, not only to obtain a reliable response, but also because the remaining organization members are usually not involved in the decision-making of the organization. In total twenty four workers were included in the survey. Although there was also the option to interview the workers, it was felt that conducting a survey would be a much more efficient way to get the required answers. All questionnaires were distributed in hard copy to the respondents.
Type of research This research is a “qualitative research due to the fact that problems, situations, facts and findings were all collected by making use of open interviews and a survey(Baarda, D. & M. De Goede, 2001, 364).” In The advantage of conducting a qualitative research is that, a lot of information can be collected which can be very useful for the researcher. On the other hand, this research has the disadvantage that the researcher may be left with so much information, that this may cause some confusion in selecting the right information for data processing.
10
1.6 Scope and Limitations During the research there were two obstacles that caused a small set-back in planning of the research:
Not all respondents were easily available for an interview;
Researcher experienced a delay in conducting the survey because at first the supervisors of the directorate were skeptic about the content of the questionnaire. This caused a delay in the research
1.7 Structure of the Paper
In chapter two a theoretical review will be given of management areas
In chapter three focus is on the results
Chapter four gives an overview of the key findings
Finally the conclusions, recommendations and a discussion section will be presented
11
§2. Literature review 2.1
Introduction
Just like in every academic research the theory plays an important role. In order to get a better understanding of the problem which the directorate of Development Finance is dealing with, the researcher has reviewed literature on management theories with regard to management structures, the different types of organization structures and subject change management. In this chapter, a brief description of the literature which has been studied is given. One of the books which was reviewed to get a better understanding of the matrix organization and other organization structures was, “Organization Theory and Design” by Richard L. Daft (2007). Mister Daft who has a specialisation in Organization Theory and Design is mainly focused in the field of management (Daft, L.2007, p.3). Daft’s way of describing management theories is very clear and direct, which makes it easy to get a clear understanding of the theory. Thomas Cummings and Christopher Worley (2008), “Organization Development and Change” was also studied. The researcher felt that the book was in a similar writing style with Daft, however Daft mainly focused on organization theories, and Cummings and Worley, who deal more with organization development (OD) (Cummings, T. & C.Worley, 2008), on Change management.
The book by Nick van Dam and Jos Marcus, entitled “Organisatie en Management” (Organization and Management) was also reviewed. Before describing the several organization structures, it was decided to first give a description of one of the main tools around which every organization is build, namely the organization chart. For describing an organization chart, the definition by Daft was used. Daft sees the organizational chart as the visual combination of “underlying processes and work activities of an organization (Daft, L.2007, p.90).” This tool facilitates the understanding how an organization works.
12
Throughout the years many organization structures have been established and implemented in various organizations. In this chapter, focus is on several organization structures in order to get a better understanding and give a proper answer to the research questions of this paper. Because two of the most relevant topics in this research are restructuring and change management, these topics will also be included in this chapter. According to Sytse Douma (2004) restructuring is a process which is often performed within an organization when drastic changes are implemented within an organization. These changes can consist of change of management, change of strategy, the release of unbeneficial activities, the release of personnel or rationalizing the primary process (Ondernemingsstrategie, p.247).
Practice has shown that implementing change within an organization is not an easy step, many persons are often afraid of change. Therefore it is important that the right steps are being taken in order to get cooperation of all organization members. Cummings and Worley (2009) state in their book “Organization Development and Change,” that in organizations which are constantly transforming, the following elements are key:
Awareness among organization members as to what their role is. Involvement through brainstorming, communication and innovation of new ideas;
Taking into consideration the future in the planning of the organization through experiments with a wide variety of low-cost probes;
There should be a clear link between current projects and the future through predictable intervals and choreographed transition procedures (Organization Development & Change, p.163-164).
2.2
Organizational structures
2.2.1 The Line Organization Structure According to Marcus and van Dam (2002), this type of organization structure is one of the eldest structures and seen as a basic tool being used by many organizations. They state that one of the 13
most important characteristics of this organization form is that orders are given in a vertical manner and that the levels and decisions within the organization are strictly taken in a top down manner from supervisor to organization members. The main principle of this organization form, that each organization member has one supervisor to take orders from and it is assumed that organization members have the duty to fulfil orders (Organisatie en Management, p.484). The supervisor within such an organization is required to have a broad experience in many areas. In this organization the delegating orders to the lower levels of the organization are characteristics. This is the result of the big work load of the top management (Organisatie en Management, p.484-485).
Marcus and van Dam also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the Line Organization. In their opinion the structure is simple, which they see as an advantage. Other advantages are that this structure has a hierarchy and a clear division of all tasks, responsibilities and authorities. Furthermore it is easy to maintain control, and costs (Organisatie en Management, p.485). However Marcus and van Dam also state that this structure has some disadvantages such as the vertical communication line, causing an over assigned communication line, hence a delay in decision making. There might also be a lack of knowledge on the part of top management, which can result in incorrect decision-making. A line structure can lead to having many organization levels due to the fact that top management is only able to manage a small group of organization members. Finally coordination can only be implemented if this is being lead by a manager who structures all departments (p.484).”
2.2.2 The Pure Project Organization We speak of a pure project organization when project management consists of all authority required to have ownership of the projects. The functionalities of the project manager are in correspondence with the supervisor of the line organization (van Dam, N. & J. Marcus, 2002, p.492) which was mentioned earlier in paragraph 2.2.1. “Another element of this organization structure is that it is divided in several departments or “pools” and the workers may be placed in different projects. (van Dam, N. & J. Marcus, 2002, p.493).
14
The advantage of the project organization is that it consists of one team leader and that individuals are able to give an optimal performance within the organization (van Dam, N. & J. Marcus, 2002, p.494). The disadvantage of this structure is that workers need to be flexible and should be able to move from one project to another. Furthermore the workload is dependent on the number of projects in portfolio (van Dam, N. & J. Marcus, 2002, p.494).
2.2.3 The Matrix Organization Structure Some organizations demand a multi-focused structure that pays attention to both product and function, or product and geography. The matrix organization structure is the ideal way of achieving this and can be used for both technical knowledge and product innovation. Another important factor is change, in order to meet the organization goals. The matrix organization structure is of a horizontal nature in which both the product and functional activities are performed at once. One of the unique characteristics of this structure is that both functional and product managers have authority, and that organization members report to both parties. (Daft, L.2007, p.108). A distinction can be made between the functional matrix organization structure, in which the functional managers have the main authority and the product matrix organization structure in which the main authority is carried by the product managers (Daft, L.2007, p.110). Matrix organization structures were originally established in the aerospace industry, due to the changing demands of customers. (Cummings, T. & C. Worley, 2008, p.319).
Disadvantages and other requirements of the Matrix organization structure Like every organization structure, the matrix organization structure has some disadvantages. These disadvantages are: 1. The dual authorization, which requires reporting to two bosses as a conflicting situation, causing frustration and confusion;
2. This structure also forces managers to spend a great amount of time in meetings. 15
Requirements for the matrix organization structure are: 1. Excellent interpersonal and conflict-resolution skills. This may require special training in human resources; 2. Managerial skills to adapt to information - and power sharing; 3. Collaboration instead of relying on vertical decision-making (Daft, L.2007, p.110).”
The following table gives an overview of both the strengths and weaknesses of the matrix organization structure: Strengths
Creates a coordination in order to meet the dual
Weaknesses
demands of the customer
Causes participants to experience dual authority; this can be both frustrating and confusing
Creates flexibility in sharing human resources
across products
This organization structure requires for participants to consist of good interpersonal skills and that expensive training is needed
Fits well in complex decision-making and
constant changes in an instable environment
Creates opportunities for both functional and
meetings and conflict resolution sessions
skill development
Works best in medium sized organisations with multiple products
This structure takes time, requires regular
Will not work unless participants understand it and are willing to cooperate
Requires great effort to maintain power balance
“Table 2.2.3.1 Strengths and weaknesses of Matrix Organizational structure (Daft, L.2007, p.111).”
2.3
Change management
In this paragraph, the focus is on the five main activities as to how to manage the changes which are being implemented. Each of the activities is part of change management. 16
1. Motivating change: this activity includes the creation of a readiness for change among organization members and supporting them in recognizing resistance to change. Leadership must be created in order for people to accept the need for change and adjust their approach to it. Motivation is often the most challenging issue, because people and organizations often look for ways to maintain status quo of the organization and are only willing to change when these changes will create certain benefits
2. Creating a vision: this is an important tool for providing purpose and reason for change. It also gives a scope of future needs. Together they provide the “why” and the “what” of planned change;
3. Developing political support: organizations often consist of powerful individuals and/or groups capable of either blocking or promoting change. Leaders and change agents need to make sure that they gain the support of these individuals or groups in order to implement changes;
4. Managing the transition: this includes taking the organization from its current to its desired state. It involves creating a plan for managing the change activities as well as putting together special management structures for operating the organization during the transition.
5. Sustaining momentum: this to make sure that the change will be kept intact in order to complete the process. It includes providing tools for implementing the changes, setting up methods to stimulate change, creating new capabilities as well as stimulating the new behaviours which are required for the changes (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p. 162164).
The first activity,, is linked to motivation, whereas the four remaining activities are connected to resistance to change. ”Motivating change” and “resistance to change” will be the main focus throughout the paper when we speak of change management and will be further explained in the two next paragraphs.
17
2.3.1 How to motivate change? Organizational change is the transformation from a familiar to an unfamiliar situation. Since there is no clear picture of the future and change may influence people’s competencies, values and coping abilities, organization members usually do not give their support to changes unless they have an understanding of the advantages of the new situation. However, the main challenge in action planning is how to get support for organizational change. Special attention should be given to two related actions namely: 1. Creating readiness for change: In order to implement organization development it is important to create a situation in which people start to feel the need for change. This includes convincing people that their current working environment is not ideal and that it could be improved by trying new work processes, technologies or by changing their behaviour. In general people within an organization need to be confronted with the sensitive factors before they are convinced that they should take meaningful changes seriously. Three methods which can be supportive in creating sufficient dissatisfaction in order to create change are:
Sensitize organization to pressure for change: many changes within an organization result from internal and/ or external pressure. Modern organizations are often confronted with unfamiliar environmental pressures which often force them to external pressures like heavy foreign competition, rapidly changing technology, and the attraction of international markets. Internal factors causing pressure within an organization are, new leadership, high production costs, poor product quality, excessive employee absenteeism and labor turnover;
Reveal discrepancies between current and desired states: In order to create the need for change, it is important to provide the members of the organization with information of the organizations current way of functioning compared to the desired state of functioning. Information could include organizational goals and standards, or of the desired organization. It is important to provide members with feedback of the current organizational status in order to compare with the desired situation. This feedback will motivate organization members and convince them to improve the organization;
Convey credible positive expectations for the change: organization members have high expectations about the results of organizational changes. These expectations are important in producing motivation for change and are an incentive for leading members
18
to invest in change programs which will work. When members assume that there will be success, they are more willing to commit to the change process and to invest more energy in a constructive behaviour which is required to implement change. Research has shown that information of the advantages for the organization and for the workers themselves and of the way in which to fill in the design and implementation of change was very useful. Also understanding the benefits of positive expectations and members and motivating them to set credible positive expectations for change implementation are important factors (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.165-166).
2.4 Overcoming resistance to change: When implementing change in an organization, organization members can sometimes be very resistant, thus making it difficult or even impossible to implement the improvements in the organization. People may find it hard to let go of the old situation and be very anxious to cross over to an unknown future. For some people it may create uncertainty as to whether their current skills will still be needed in the future. People may doubt whether they will function effectively, and whether the new situation will be beneficial. Within an organization resistance for change could be of 3 types:
Technical resistance: procedures are taken into account along with possible “costs invested in the status quo (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.166-167).”
Political resistance: when influential stakeholders within the organization feel that their position is being endangered, such as staff personnel or top executives;
Cultural resistance: systems and procedures that influence the status quo, promotes conformity to existing values, norms and assumptions about how things work (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.166-167).”
19
Resistance to change can be dealt with through three major strategies: 1. Strategy based on empathy and support: A strategy based on understanding how people experience change and by this it becomes easier to identify people who are afraid for change, the reason of resistance, and the options to overcome this: However, a good understanding and support is required. Furthermore it is also required to exclude judgement, thus to be able to place once self in the shoes of another person: active listening. If the people who have to undergo the changes feel that they are listened to and understood, resistance will be less and they will be open. An open relationship provides more clarity of the resistance, and could also be a basis for creating joint solutions for the barriers;
2. Communication strategy: People become defensive against change when the impact of change is unclear. Lack of proper communication could result in speculations which can lead to fear for change. By making use of a communication strategy a better understanding and less resistance to change could be achieved. On the other hand communication can also be a complex issue to manage change. The best strategy which can be used to effectively communicate with organization members is, by making use of presentations and meetings, rather than by emails or memos;
3. Strategy of participation and involvement: Involving personnel directly in the planning and implementing processes of change. This can lead to the creation of high-quality changes and immediately overcoming resistance for implementing action. Members get the opportunity to help thinking, share ideas and identify possible barriers of implementation. If interests and needs of organization members are being met, a commitment could be developed to support implementation. For persons who feel the need to be involved within the process, the act of participation can be a big stimulation, thus leading to a bigger success in implementing change (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.167).
20
2.5 Conclusions The goal of the literature review was to get a better understanding of the matrix organization structure and other theories which are important for this research. These theories will finally have to contribute to answering the research question. The literature review showed the following: 1. That even though you might have a strategy in mind of the structure that you might want to implement, it is also good to focus on other possibilities. By studying other organization structures apart from the matrix organization structure, it was not only possible to compare the organization structure to other types of organization structures, but also to form an own opinion on why the matrix organization structure is being preferred over other organizational structures;
2. All organizational structures mentioned in this chapter have their advantages and disadvantages. The matrix organization structure, which will be the main focus in this paper, pre-contains some conditions which should be taken into account before implementation. The directorate of Development Finance has an important task in taking these pre-conditions into account in the transformation from a bureaucratic to a matrix organization. Throughout this paper we will also see which of these pre-conditions are already in place and which of these still require implementation. 3. The change management theory teaches us that when change is implemented into an organization, success is not always achieved at once; which can result in resistance to change. However, if in the case of resistance certain tools, activities and facilities are implemented or put in place, this can lead to a positive mind-shift of organization members. 4. All management theories are based on trial -and error experiences which have been conducted in past years. However, the challenge always lies in knowing how to adjust and how to implement these theories. Every situation might be a bit different from what is stated in the theory.
21
§3. Research Results 3.1
Structured interviews
The results of the interview are presented in the four tables according to the following dimensions. : 1.
Restructuring
2.
Change management
3.
Resistance to change
4.
Matrix organizations/ restructuring of the department of Development Finance
5.
Table 3.1.1 Findings on Restructuring Question:
What is restructuring?(defined by the respondents)
Resp.1
1. Financial restructuring: intermediary between the bank and the client; 2. Organizational restructuring: Within the company possibilities are sought for new solutions
Resp.3
Instead of restructuring he speaks of structuring and defines 3 structuring instruments: 1. Knowledge structuring: structuring takes place based on present knowledge; 2. Structure structuring: is used in order to solve issues by changing the organization structure; 3. Process structuring: is based on social processes to solve issues. When implemented in the right way, it will also consist of the two aforementioned forms of structuring
What steps should be undertaken when restructuring?
Working on a bottom-up level and from the outside to the inside; Creation of a situation analysis, taking into account the feedback of persons outside the organization (external factors). Based on this an analysis is made of the issue.
What is the difference between restructuring in a public organization – and private organization? Within a public organization there are also social interest and politics are also of influence, in contradiction to a private organization; These interests also need to be taken into consideration; Private organizations are very straight to the point with regard to interests, of their shareholders The implementation technique is the same, however in public organization the process is often overruled by politics; The administration in public organizations can only be amended if the political system is changed first. Restructuring of organizational atmosphere is hardly ever possible without restructuring the political atmosphere
22
Resp.4
Resp.5
Restructuring is the re-partition of agreements with regard to the framework in which a strategic plan has been worked out. it has to do with internal adjustment.
N/A
Resp.7
N/A
Awareness about which model you want to implement; Based on a particular model a restructuring plan has to be implemented; Research on how you want to restructure
Find support for the restructuring plan and be aware that not all persons might agree at once; There should be a valuable argumentation why the restructuring is relevant. Therefore there should be counter argumentation Have in mind what you want with your organization, which structure should be implemented and the steps to be undertaken; Amendment of the current structure After implementation of the new structure see how the personnel will be adjusted to this structure with the possible creation of new functions Formalization of the structure
Persons in a public organization have a different attitude compared to persons in a private organization. Because most public organizations are non-profit organizations, whereas private organizations are profit-oriented; Within private companies planning is very important, within public organizations no real sanctions are implemented Within public/ governmental organizations, restructuring is influenced by politics
N/A
Conclusions 1. Three respondents gave their view on restructuring. Respondent.1 and 4 defined the types of restructuring and Respondent 2 gave an explanation of the three restructuring instruments, and overall all respondents gave a clear view of the term restructuring.
2. The answers of respondents show some similarities with the definition given by Douma on page 13 of paragraph 2.1, the introduction. Just like in the definition, all respondents speak of implementing changes in all areas like financial restructuring (Respondent 1) and organizational restructuring. Respondent7’s response is in contradiction with the answer of
23
Respondent 3 who states that it is important to apply a bottom-up approach. Personnel should be involved in the process right from the start of the restructuring process.
3. Of the four respondent’s responses, researcher is of the opinion, that Respondent 3 has the best strategy with regard to the restructuring plan. Not only does his plan of action allow you to get a clear picture of what the possible issues are in an organization, he also takes into account internal influences, by working on a bottom-up approach and external influences by taking into account opinions of persons outside of the organization.
4. Finally, the answers of Respondents 1, 3 and 5 share similarities with regard to the restructuring of the public sector. In their answers all three respondents are of the opinion that politics are of influence and could overrule the entire restructuring process. The answers of Respondent 1 and Respondent 4 share some other similarities with regard to restructuring within the private sector. Both respondents are of the opinion that planning by organization members is very important and that it is important to convince these members of importance of restructuring.
Table 3.1.2 Findings on Change management Question:
What is Change Management?
What steps need to be undertaken in change management?
Resp.6
Change management can be divided in:
Why: it is very important that organization members are being “triggered” why change is necessary. As long as the urgency for change stays unclear, the need to do things different will not be present.
1. Internal Changes: managing change by asking questions such as: where do we want to go as an organization? What will have to change with respect to structure, goals, design and what do we expect from the people? 2. Management of the change process/ people: managing of the change process. This is often difficult because you have to change the behaviour/ attitudes of persons. However if organization members don’t have a different behaviour/ perspective, change cannot be implemented.
How: knowing “how change will be implemented” and “what this means for the support which you will get.” All new changes will give organization members different expectations. If you have other expectations from workers you have to install other facilities in order for your personnel to change;
24
What: an organization may decide to implement a new vision, but “what exactly does this vision mean?” “What is the meaning of the new vision and what will this mean for the daily working activities?” On top of the above mentioned primary steps, there are additional supporting elements such as communication
Conclusions 1. Researcher is of the opinion that the explanation given by Respondent.6, a clear indication is given as to what change management is about, which is similar to certain elements stated in chapter 2.3.
2. The similarities in the answer of Respondent are clear as to the change management theory explained in paragraph 2.3. In the plan of action Respondent 6 speaks about the importance it is to trigger personnel in order to convince them that change is necessary or urgent. This is in accordance with the first change activity mentioned on page 18, “motivating change”, which speaks of “creating readiness for change among organization members and supporting them in recognizing resistance to change. “(Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.165-166). ” 3. The “what”-element of Respondent.6 shows similarities to the necessary change activities “creating a vision” and “managing the transition”. Similar to the change activities the “what”-element mentions the importance of knowing how change will be implemented. If the supervisor has different expectations from its personnel, other facilities may be required. These points are also in correspondence with “giving a scope of future designs (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.165-166)” which is mentioned in point two of the change activities and “putting together special management structures for operating the organization during the transition (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.165-166)”as is mentioned in change activity number four.
25
4.
Respondent 6’s answers on the “what”- and “how” element corresponds with required change activity “sustaining momentum”, which mentions the provision of tools for implementing the changes. This corresponds with the “what”-element. Building a support system for change agents, developing new competences and skills as well as stimulating the new behaviour can be linked to the “what”- element.
Table 3.1.3 Findings on Resistance to change Question: What is resistance to change?
Resp.1
N/A
How do you motivate change?/ Overcome resistance to change?
Place oneself in the shoes of the organization members; Analyze what benefits the workers will have from the new situation; There should be a link between the organizational goals and the possible benefits for the organization members; Often it is unclear for persons what their role is within the organization, therefore awareness is important.
Resp.2
N/A
Resp.3
N/A
Make an analysis of the organization from the outside to the inside and a bottom-up approach; Involve all organization members, taking into account all their arguments and opinions. Including all persons, will reduce resistance
Resp.4
N/A
Honesty and clarity are important to convince the personnel why the changes are relevant; Explanation to organization members what the future plans are, which changes would be implemented and what kind of position all organizations members will hold afterwards; Convince people why change is important by explaining what might happen if they continue to function in the current situation.
Resp.5
Have sessions among the personnel to receive their input as well; All organization members should be involved in the process.
The human factor can be the biggest threat when implementing change or restructuring; It is often difficult for persons to let go of the current situation, and as a result of this, persons have difficulties to look into an optimal situation; You can sense a form of “resistance” moment that questions start arising among
26
Resp.6
the workers. When organization members consciously and unconsciously work against the plans of the organization; Often we can speak of an unconscious resistance when persons go along with the changes, however are not motivated.
The following tools are important:
Communication: often performed in a one-way directions, dialogue sessions with all organization members are important;
Implementation of new methods for workers such as training and master-classes;
Motivation by involvement: organization members need to feel that they are involved in the process;
Organization members should be given the opportunity to think about change.
Other essential factors are:
A better function; A better reward; Better skills; Better Development.
Conclusions 1. Researcher is of the opinion that the answers given by aforementioned respondents do give a sufficient clarification of the term resistance to change, also mentioned in chapter 2.
2. All respondents gave a clear answer to the question to motivating change. There are some similarities between the theory on page 18-19, “how to motivate change (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.165-166)”, the theory on page 19-20, “overcoming resistance to change (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.167)” and the answers given by some of the respondents. Especially the answers given by Respondents 1,4 and 6 share similarities with the “how to motivate change”-actions.
3. Respondent 3 spoke of involving the organization members in the process while preparing an analysis of the organization. This is compatible with the third strategy on page 20, “participation and involvement.” 27
4. Respondent4’s answer is in correspondence with action 1 on page 18, “creating readiness for change.” In both theory and the answer of Respondent 4 it is stated that it is important to prepare the organization members for change and to convince them of the changes necessary.
5. The answers of Respondents.5 and 6 share similarities as they both speak of the importance of communication with the organization members and the involvement of the organization members in the process. These answers can be linked to two of three possible strategies which can be implemented to prevent resistance to change namely:
The first point brought up by Respondent 6, under the name “communication” and the remark made by Respondent 5 who is of the opinion that the personnel should be given the opportunity to give their opinion are according to the second strategy, “communication (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.167)” ;
The remark made by Respondent 5 who feels that the personnel should be involved in the process and the third point made by Respondent6, namely “motivation by involvement” is according to the third strategy, “participation and involvement (Cummings T. & C. Worley 2008, p.167)”
Table 3.1.4 Matrix organizations/ restructuring of the directorate of Development Finance Question:
What is the matrix organization?
Would the matrix organization structure be workable within the directorate of Development Finance
Resp.1
Organizations which are of temporary nature and are terminated after the completion of a project.
The matrix structure would be workable if a special department is established which is involved in certain aspects of projects. Sharing of knowledge is important. The directorate will be able to function more effectively and efficiently There will also be better communication
Resp.2
1. 2.
Two factors should be taken into account when creating the matrix:
3.
The matrix organization has two bosses; a horizontal structure and not the vertical structure. No hierarchy (relationship between a supervisor and a staff-member);
Keep control on what happens in the sector; Take into account demands of the donor;
28
4.
Duty to report to colleague.
The unit should consist of donor- and sector departments; It needs to be decided if the matrix will be build on the level of the donor or on the level of the sector; The matrix should not be built on the level of the donor.
Resp.3
N/A
The matrix structure is an unrealistic structure AND becomes a failure after two or three years; Workers will only get confused by the fact that they have to function under two superiors.
Resp.4
N/A
The matrix structure leads to better communication lines, more efficiency as well as effectiveness.
Resp.5
N/A
The matrix structure will lead to more efficiency
Resp.6
N/A
No idea whether the matrix structure will indeed have any benefits for the directorate of Development Finance.
Resp.7
N/A
Resp.8
N/A
1. The organization structure being implemented in the directorate is not relevant. What is important is that there is: A vision; A planning The organization is divided based on their priorities.
2. Every partner, or donor, should have their own department. These departments should again consist of sub-departments; 3. It needs to be clear s to how these departments will be managed; 4. There also needs to be donor coordination on a regular basis.
29
Conclusions 1. What can be concluded is that the matrix organization which was described by Respondent1 is different from the description given in literature; the matrix organization is not of a temporary nature as mentioned by Respondent 1;
2. The first characteristic mentioned by Respondent 2 can immediately be linked to the theory which is described in paragraph 2.2.3 on page 15, where the author Daft, L. (2007)also describes this element and speaks of a “dual structure”(Daft, L.2007, p.110) or “dual authority”(Daft, L.2007, p.110);
3. The second point made by Respondent 2 is also similar to one of the characteristics discussed earlier in the theory of paragraph 2.2.3 on page 15 by the author Daft in which it is stated that the matrix organization is a horizontal structure.
4. What also can be concluded from the answers of Respondents.1, 4 and 5 that all three persons are of the opinion that implementing the matrix structure could lead to:
More efficiency
More effectiveness
Better communication lines
5. One remark made by Respondent 1 on “sharing of knowledge” could also be linked directly to one of the strengths of the matrix structure on page 16, in which Daft (2007) explains that the matrix organization “flexibility can be created in sharing human resources across products (Daft, L.2007, p.111) ” 6. Finally, the remark made by Respondent 8 when he speaks on “donor coordination on a regular basis,” corresponds with one of the requirements of the matrix structure, namely the “importance of the managers collaborating (Daft, L.2007, p.110).”
30
3.2 Research Findings of a change and restructuring plan within the directorate of Development Finance Results of conducted survey with staff-workers of the directorate of Development Finance; the goal of this research is to get a idea on certain aspects such as:
How the workers feel about the transformation from a ministry to a department;
If they are satisfied with their current work situation;
How they feel about change;
Their thoughts on possible restructuring from a bureaucratic organization to matrix organization structure.
Transformation from the ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation to the directorate of Development Finance Q1a: Comparison of previous and current organization structure The respondents were first asked which structure in their opinion was better: the current organization structure or the previous organization structure. From all respondents, 70.8% is of the opinion that the previous structure is better, 12.5% stated that both structures score equally; whereas 12.5% marked other. One respondent (4.2%) did not answer this question.
31
80
60
40
Percent
20
0 .00
They are both equal The previous structu
Other
Q1a: Comparison previous and current organization structure
Q1b: Was the previous structure of the former ministry workable in your opinion? Of all respondents, 91.7% felt that the previous structure of the ministry was workable. This question was not answered by two persons (8.3%). 100
80
60
40
Percent
20
0 .00
Yes
Q1b: Was the previous organization structure of the ministry workable?
32
Q2: Experience transformation process ministry of PLOS to the directorate of Development Finance Of all respondents 25% was of the opinion that they had to get used to the changes in the beginning. Another 25% saw this experience as average, because they didn’t agree with all of the structure changes. 29.2 % saw the transformation process as a negative experience and said that the changes were not easy and 4.2% marked other. Two respondents (8.3%) did not answer this question.
Q3a: Would you add changes to the transformation process PLOS – directorate of Development Finance? A percentage of 83.3% of all respondents stated that they would add changes to the change process. Four respondents (16.7%) did not answer this question.
Q3b: What would you have done differently? When respondents were asked what they would have done differently in the transformation process, 25% was of the opinion that they would have had better communication with personnel. Another 25% would have changed the planning with regard to the structure changes. 20.8% of the staff is of the opinion that the changes should not have been implemented, whereas 16.7% marked other. Three respondents (12.5%) did not answer this question.
Conclusions 1. It can be concluded that most persons within the directorate prefer to work under the previous structure, instead of the current one. Based on this it may also be assumed that the personnel found the previous structure more effective;
2. It is also worth knowing that a great deal of the staff had an issue in adjusting to the changes of the transformation processes and that some persons did not agree with the changes.
33
Therefore, it may be carefully assumed that personnel was not involved in the transformation process and that personnel was not asked for their input;
3. From the remarks made by the respondents, it could be said that they would have improved communication and planning of the transformation process. It can also be carefully assumed that some mistakes might have been made during the process.
The current organization structure and work situation on the Directorate of Development Finance Q4: To what extent are you satisfied with the current situation? Of all the respondents, 58.3% finds the current situation average, 20.8% is very unsatisfied, whereas 16.7% marked other. One respondent (4.2%) did not answer this question.
Q5. I am of the opinion that the current situation on the work floor: With regard to this question, 58.3% of the respondents stated to find the current situation average and that it can always be better. 20.8% finds the current situation unsatisfying and is therefore not motivated to do their work. 8.3% of the respondents are satisfied with the new situation and are motivated to perform their job. One respondent marked other (4.2%) whereas two respondents (8.3%) did not answer this question.
Q6a: The strengths of the directorate are: 37.5% of respondents view team work as one of the strengths of the directorate, 20.8% agrees that the personnel is the biggest strength of the directorate. Another 16.7% sees communication as their biggest strength, and 16.7% marked other. 4.2% considers project management to be the strength of the directorate. One respondent (4.2%) did not answer this question.
34
40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
Project Management Communication
Team Work
The personnel
Other
Q6a: The strengths of the directorate are:
Q6b: The weaknesses of the directorate are: 29.2% of the staff sees communication as the weakness of the directorate, whereas 16.7% considers the facilities to be the biggest weakness of the directorate. 33.3% of the staff marked other and 8.3% complained about the working pressure. Three respondents (12.5%) did not answer this question. 40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
Work pressure Communic ation
Other Facilities
Q6b: The weaknesses of the directorate are:
35
Conclusion 1. What can be concluded by the percentages is that most of the respondents are not completely satisfied with the current situation. it may therefore be carefully assumed that, as a result of this, not all persons are motivated to do their job;
2. Based on the weaknesses given by respondents it may also be carefully assumed that the dissatisfaction within the directorate may also be caused by a weakness in communication and in poor facilities;
Change within the organization/ working environment Q7: How do you feel about change in the directorate? What was interesting is that 87.5% of e respondents is open for change and it was stated that a flexible approach was preferred. One respondent (4.2%) stated to be open for change only when he/ could benefit from it. One person (4.2%) did not respond to this question.
Q8: What do you feel is important when implementing change within an organization? 58.3% of personnel thinks that good communication is very important in order to get a clear view of the outcome, whereas 16.7% has expressed that they would like to be involved in the process. One respondent (4.2%) says that the advantages of the changes need to be clear and 12.5% marked other. Two respondents (8.3%) did not answer this question.
Q9a: Are you familiar with the matrix organization structure? Of the entire personnel, 37.5% states that they are familiar with the matrix organization structure, 45.8% says that they have heard of this structure before, but that don’t know it very well. 12.5 of the respondents are not familiar with the matrix organization structure. One respondent (4.2%) did not answer this question.
36
50
40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
Yes
Not very w ell, but I
No
Q9a: Are you familiar with the matrix organization structure
Q9b: How do you feel about these possible changes? 37.5% of personnel has admitted that they are pretty skeptic, and that the changes are not yet clear. 25% of respondents stated that they have no problem with change and that they have a positive approach. 12.5% of respondents have stated that they are against change and that they prefer the previous structure. Two persons (8.3%) did not respond to this question.
Q10: How do you feel about reporting to two bosses? With regard to this final question, 54.2% of respondents have stated not to be sure as to how they feel about reporting to two bosses and that practice will show if this is workable. 29.2% says that with a clear division in tasks it should be workable. One respondent (4.2%) says not to have any belief in this system. Two respondents (8.3%) did not answer this question.
37
60
50
40
30
Percent
20
10
0 .00
I have no believe in With a clear divisio
Other
I'm not sure. Practi
Q10: How would you feel about reporting to two bosses?
Conclusions 1. What can be concluded is that even though more than 80% of personnel may not be against change, many of the organization members do have their doubts about the matrix structure.
2. Many employees are not yet convinced of reporting to two bosses and if this would be workable in practice.
38
§4. Key Findings 4.1 Key findings Required skills for a successful implementation of the matrix structure Based on the theory the researcher has the following finding: On page 16 of Chapter 2 it was stated that the matrix organization structure has certain requirements. When it comes to the directorate of Development Finance the following can be stated: 1. Excellent interpersonal and conflict-resolution skills are required by the matrix organization structure for personnel to be flexible and to be able to handle conflict situations. Many individuals within the directorate already have the ability to work under such conditions, however some extra training may be necessary for those we cannot handle conflict-situations;
2. Good managerial skills to adapt to information - and power sharing: because the personnel of the directorate is responsible for monitoring donor projects,; Cooperation between the different donor desks is a possible way of sharing information on the work floor. 3. Collaboration instead of relying on vertical decision-making: at the moment decisions are still made in a hierarchical manner. A change in the decision-making style will be necessary.
Structure From the theory and the survey, the researcher will summarize the findings according to the following structure:
The experts: eight persons of both the public and the private sector; Two of these persons are directly involved in the process of the directorate.
The persons involved in strategically managing the process: the government officials from the ministry of Finance; 39
All eight respondents have given their opinion on the four key dimensions of change:
Restructuring
Change management
Resistance to change
Matrix organizations/ restructuring of the directorate of Development Finance
Out of the eight respondents, only two disagreed and were of the opinion that the matrix organization structure might not be workable. It may therefore be concluded that from the perspective of the experts 80% does support the implementation of this structure. However, the results of the survey have shown that less than 50% of personnel is familiar with this structure and are pretty sceptic if it will indeed be workable. The uncertainty about this structure may also lie in the fact that more than 50% has their doubts about having to report to two bosses. The fact that more than 80% of personnel have stated to be open for change, does prove that there might be a slight possibility that the rest of personnel can still be convinced of the reasons for implementing this structure. Survey results have also shown that, when change is implemented, most respondents find communication and involvement very important. Therefore it will be the job of the directorate, to make use of these aforementioned and other tools along with a good strategy to successfully implement restructuring. Some of these tools were already mentioned in the theory (Chapter 2) and many suggestions have also been made by experts (Chapter 3)
4.2
Implementation of a change and restructuring plan within the directorate
Based on the theory and the feedback collected through the interviews and the survey the researcher has come to the following restructuring plan: 1. The first step is to do a research of the directorate taking into account both the internal and external factors. This means including the feedback of the personnel, but also including the thoughts of the stakeholders or persons outside the organization; 40
2. Based on the results of the research an analysis should be made to see what the problems are which are jeopardizing the optimal performance of the directorate;
3. Assuming that the issue lies in the organization structure a plan needs to be set up how the restructuring will take place. This will once again include the feedback of the personnel. The best way to collect this feedback is by having brainstorming sessions which gives the personnel the opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas, but also by making use of simple tools such as questionnaires and idea boxes. Information outside the organization can be collected through surveys as well as interviews. In this phase it is important to take the following steps into account:
Why restructuring should take place: the personnel need to be made aware why the restructuring is important, otherwise they might not cooperate. This may then result in a possible resistance to change;
What the direction is that the organization is heading to: the vision of the organization needs to be clear for all organization members, and furthermore it also needs to be explained to them what will be expected from them as well. During this step it should also be decided if new functions will be created and if this will require additional training such as master classes or other types of courses;
How to restructure: as previously mentioned the involvement of the personnel as well as a good strategy will be important. Furthermore it will also have to be decided if the restructuring will have to take place in phases. If the directorate also decides to implement the matrix structure it will also have to decide on how the department will be divided and how reporting to two bosses will have to take place
4. Up front it cannot be said how long the implementation of the restructuring plan will take. The success of implementing each phase will depend on the willingness of the personnel. However it is important that after each implementing phase an evaluation is held with the
41
personnel in order to see if the implementation is still in line with the vision of the organization;
5. After the new organization structure has been implemented, the final step is to have this new structure formalized.
42
§ 5. Conclusions & Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions The goal of this research was to find an answer to the main research question and sub-questions. Based on the aforementioned questions the researcher has come to the final conclusion that: 1. Implementing a change and restructuring plan is possible according to most of the experts interviewed in the field. In their opinion this can even lead to a better functioning of the directorate;
2. During the survey most organization members of the directorate have stated that they stand open for change as long as there is a good communication and involvement of the personnel.
3. However, there are a view points that may constitute possible constraints in the change and restructuring process:
We must not forget that even though the directorate mainly practices project management it is still a public organization with a bureaucratic background. During the interviews, at least three respondents have stated that the restructuring process is almost always influenced by politics, and that you can hardly change the administration without changing the political atmosphere. Therefore it may be concluded that political influence may be a constraint in the restructuring process;
Furthermore, many organization members have stated not to be familiar with the matrix organization structure. This can form another constraint in the process, since they now have their doubts about its implementation. Many of them also doubt if the dual reporting system will be effective. If these issues are not taken into account during the implementation process, this could lead to a possible resistance to change among the personnel of the directorate.
43
There was often a strong link between theory and practice:
While writing the paragraph on change management a relation was made between the own experience of the dismantling of the ministry of PLOS and the theory;
Many points which were mentioned in the theory with regard to restructuring, change management, resistance to change and matrix organizations had a strong link with some of the points made by some of the respondents during their interviews
5.2 Recommendations 1. When performing a restructuring plan, there should be an analysis of the organization to discover what the possible problems are. Based on this, a restructuring plan should be put together. It would be advisable for the directorate to have such an analysis made to get a clear view of what the issues are within the directorate.
2. Out of the results of the survey, it clearly came forward that most of the organization members of the directorate of Development Finance are not against change, and have a flexible approach, but that they do have their doubts about a possible implementation of the matrix organization. This doubt is mainly caused by unfamiliarity of the staff with the matrix structure. In case the top-management of the directorate does decide to implement this organization structure, it will be the job of this organ to convince the staff why it is relevant to perform the implementation process. Beside it, it will also be of importance to explain to the personnel what the matrix structure is, how it works, and what benefits it can bring to the functioning of the department. Therefore the top-management will have to create awareness among the staff in order to convince them of the restructuring. 3. In order to make a successful transition from a bureaucratic-to a matrix organization structure, it is recommended that the organization also:
Provides training for the organization members of the directorate to improve their interpersonal and conflict resolution skills and to create more flexibility;
Shares information; this can be done through meetings between different donor desks of the directorate
44
Creates a change in their decision-making. This also includes delegation authority to the desk-managers instead of taking decisions on a hierarchical way.
4. What might remain a challenge during the restructuring process is the total exclusion of political influences throughout the process. However where possible, the top-management should try to prevent these influences from jeopardizing the restructuring process.
5. Until now the donor funding was always coordinated by the former ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation, which has now gone up into the ministry of Finance. When it comes to the technical nature of the project this is supervised by the co-ministries. Within every project the practice of the donor rules and procedures plays a core role during the implementation of the project. Any procedural mistake made within the project might result into ineligibility, meaning that the donor funding has to be repaid by the ministry of Finance. In order to prevent this from happening it is therefore strongly recommended that if the directorate of Development Finance decides to implement the matrix organization structure that it chooses to implement the functional matrix organization structure (mentioned on page 15, paragraph 2.2.3). In the case of the directorate the functional manager’s position will be filled in by the donor desk managers, whereas the product manager’s position will be fulfilled by the sector managers. This means that the donor desk managers will be responsible for the protection of the rules and procedures which are practiced by a certain donor. Furthermore also the finances of the project will be part of the donor desk manager’s responsibility. On the other hand the more technical side of the project, which will consist of nature of the project as well as the values of the stakeholders, should be protected by the sector manager.
45
§ 6. Discussion Though it was not mentioned earlier in the results, the researcher also made use of the opportunity to ask seven out of eight respondents what their thoughts were on a possible implementation of the matrix organization structure in other governmental institutions. Out of these seven respondents five had stated that it the matrix organization structure did seem like a helpful tool to organize these institutions. The researcher a completely agrees with these respondents would therefore like to advice that perhaps in the future a further research should be held which studies this topic.
46
§ Reference List and Bibliography
Baarda, D. & M. De Goede (2003), Basisboek Statistiek met SPSS; Handleiding voor het verwerken en analyseren van en eindrapporten over (onderzoeksgegevens), Groningen/ Houten: Wolters Noordhoff BV
Baarda, D. & M. De Goede. (2001), Basisboek Methoden en Technieken; Groningen Houten: Wolters Noordhoof BV
Cummings, T. & C.Worley (2008) Organization Development & Change, Natorp Boulevard Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning
Daft, R. (2007), Organization Theory and Design, Natorp Boulevard Mason, Ohio: Thompson Learning Academic Resource Center
Davis, S. & P.Lawrence (1978), Problems of matrix organizations, Journal of Harvard Business Review: 131-142
De Caluwe, L. & H.Vermaak (2004), Change Paradigms: An overview. Organization Development, Journal of Organizational Development Journal 22: 9-18
Douma, S. (2004), Ondernemingsstrategie, Groningen/ Houten: Wolters Noordhof BV
Lawson, J. (1986), A quick look at matrix organization from the perspective of a practicing manager, Journal of Elsevier Science Publishers: 61-70
Mee, J. (1964), Matrix Organization, Journal of Business Horizon: 70-72
Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation (2009), Ministerie van Planning en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, Jaarverslag 2009, Paramaribo, Suriname
47
Van Dam, N. & J.Marcus (2002), Een praktijkegerichte benadering van Organisatie en Management, Groningen/ Houten: Wolters Noordhoff BV
48
§ List of Respondents
Drs. Adeline Wijnerman - The Minister of Finance
Drs. Iris Sandel, MPA - The Deputy Director of Development Finance
Dr. Mirdita Elstak - Senior Advisor KPMP
Dr. Ricardo van Ravenswaay – Former Minister of Planning and Development Cooperation
Mister Hans Lim A Po – Founder and Director of the FHR Institute for Social Sciences
Mister Cyrill Soeri, MA – Senior Consultant Tjong A Hung Consultancy
Dr. Leo Klinkers – Senior Consultant and founder Klinkers Public Policy Consultants
Mister Stanley Brunings, MBA – Advisor at the Central Bank of Suriname
49
Appendix A Interview Respondent 1: Algemene vragen achtergrond consultant en herstructurering 1. Zou u mij iets meer kunnen vertellen over uw achtergrond en uw werkzaamheden? 2. Wat verstaat u onder de term herstructurering? 3. Heeft u zelf enige ervaringen met herstructurering en zo ja, zou u iets meer hierover kunnen vertellen? (eventueel een voorbeeld geven) 4. Wanneer bent u zelf van mening dat een organisatie/ bedrijf toe is aan een herstructurering? 5. Indien er binnen een organisatie/ bedrijf sprake zal zijn van een herstructurering, hoe pakt u dit aan? 6. Wat is het verschil tussen de herstructurering binnen een particuliere organisatie en de herstructurering binnen een publieke organisatie?
7a. Binnen uw ervaring als consultant, heeft u ook te doen gehad met overheidsinstanties? 7b. Zo ja, zou u een voorbeeld hiervan kunnen geven?
8. Wat zijn de meest uitdagende factoren bij de herstructurering van een overheidsorganisatie? 9. Tijdens een herstucturering zijn er verscheidene factoren die moeten worden meegenomen, waaronder de factor mens. Indien er mensen zijn die bij de herstructurering moeite hebben met de veranderingen hoe overtuigt u hen van de noodzaak van deze veranderingen? 10. Speelt de grootte van een organisatie ook een rol bij de herstructurering? 11. Zo ja, zou u dat verder kunnen toelichten waarom de grootte een rol speelt? 12. Met uw ervaring als consultant hoe lang duurt het ongeveer alvorens een nieuwe structuur binnen een organisatie kan worden doorgevoerd?
50
Vragen met betrekking tot de herstructurering binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering 13. Binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering is het idee ontstaan van het transformeren van de organisatie structuur van een bureaucratisch systeem naar een matrix organisatie. Een van de redenen hiervoor is omdat er binnen de organisatie voornamelijk wordt gedaan aan project management. Hoe denkt u hierover? 14. Het doel van deze herstructurering is dat er binnen het directoraat effectiever gewerkt zal worden, beter gefunctioneerd zal worden en dat ook de communicatielijnen verbeterd zullen worden. Denkt u dat deze doelen bereikt zouden kunnen worden met behulp van deze herstructurering? 15. Wat zouden volgens u de voor- en nadelen kunnen zijn van deze herstructurering? 16. Welke factoren zouden volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren zijn bij dit herstructureringsproces? 17. Welke factoren zouden volgens u een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor het herstructureringsproces? 18. Heeft u enig idee hoe lang deze herstructurering zou kunnen duren? 19. Indien u gevraagd zou worden om het herstructureringsplan te schrijven en uit te voeren voor het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering, hoe zou u dit aanpakken? 20. Denkt u dat in de toekomst dit model geïmplementeerd zou kunnen worden binnen meerdere overheidsinstanties?
51
Appendix B Interview Respondent 2 Algemene vragen met betrekking tot herstructurering 1. Als ervaren wetenschapper, zou u mij wat meer kunnen vertellen over uw ervaring met herstructurering binnen een organisatie? 2. Met welke vormen van herstructurering bent u bekend? 3. Wanneer bent u zelf van mening dat een organisatie behoefte heeft aan herstructurering? 4. Als wetenschapper heeft u uiteraard verscheidene theorieën bestudeerd met betrekking tot herstructurering. Bent u van mening dat al deze theorieën werkbaar zijn in de praktijk en kunt u er enkele noemen?
5a. Wat zijn volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren bij de herstructurering van een organisatie als manager? 5b. Wat zijn volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren bij de herstructurering als wetenschapper?
6a. Ook de factor mens speelt een belangrijk rol bij een herstructurering. In de praktijk is het vaak gebleken dat personen weleens moeite kunnen hebben met het doorvoeren van veranderingen binnen een organisatie. Hoe zou u hiermee omgaan als manager van een organisatie en uw personeel proberen te overtuigen? 6b. Hoe zou u als wetenschapper met dit proces omgaan om het personeel van een organisatie te overtuigen?
7. Speelt de grootte van de organisatie ook een rol bij de herstructurering en zou u dit kunnen motiveren?
8. Wat is het verschil tussen de herstructurering binnen een overheidsorganisatie en de herstructurering binnen een particuliere organisatie?
52
9. Wat zijn volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren bij de herstructurering van en overheidsorganisatie? 10. Behalve het feit dat de herstructurering belemmerd kan worden door personen die moeite hebben met het doorvoeren van veranderingen binnen een organisatie/ bedrijf, zijn er ook andere factoren die een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor het proces?
Vragen met betrekking tot matrix organisaties 11. Een van de organisatie structuren die ook wel vaker wordt toegepast is de matrix organisatie. Bent u bekend met de achtergrond van dit model? Zo ja, zou u wat meer toelichting over dit model willen geven (achtergrond, ontstaan van de matrix organisatie) 12. Elke organisatie structuur heeft zijn voor- en nadelen. Wat zijn volgens u de voor- en nadelen van dit model?
Vragen met betrekking tot de herstructurering binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering 13. Binnen het opkomende directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering is het idee ontstaan van het transformeren van de organisatie structuur van een bureaucratisch systeem naar een matrix organisatie. Een van de redenen hiervoor is omdat er binnen de organisatie voornamelijk wordt gedaan aan project management. Hoe denkt u hierover? 14. Het doel van deze herstructurering is dat er binnen het directoraat effectiever gewerkt zal worden, beter gefunctioneerd zal worden en dat ook de communicatielijnen verbeterd zullen worden. Denkt u dat deze doelen bereikt zouden kunnen worden met behulp van deze herstructurering? 15. Wat zouden volgens u de voor- en nadelen kunnen zijn van deze herstructurering? 16. Welke factoren zouden volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren zijn bij dit herstructureringsproces? 17. Welke factoren zouden volgens u een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor het herstructureringsproces? 18. Heeft u enig idee hoe lang een dergelijke herstructurering zou kunnen duren? 19. Indien u gevraagd zou worden om het herstructureringsplan te schrijven en uit te voeren voor het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering, hoe zou u dit aanpakken? 53
20. Denkt u dat in de toekomst dit model geïmplementeerd zou kunnen worden in meerdere overheidsinstanties?
54
Appendix C Interview Respondent 3: Algemene vragen herstructurering binnen een organisatie/ bedrijf 1. Wat verstaat u zelf onder de term herstructurering? 2. Met welke vormen van herstructurering bent u bekend? 3. Als consultant heeft u ook de nodige ervaring met herstructurering binnen organisaties. Wanneer bent u zelf van mening dat een organisatie/ bedrijf toe is aan een herstructurering? 4. Indien er binnen een organisatie/ bedrijf sprake zal zijn van een herstructurering, hoe pakt u dit aan? 5. Wat is het verschil tussen de herstructurering binnen een particuliere organisatie en de herstructurering binnen een publieke organisatie?
6a. Binnen uw ervaring als consultant, heeft u ook te doen gehad met overheidsinstanties? 6b. Zo ja, zou u een voorbeeld hiervan kunnen geven?
7. Wat zijn de meest uitdagende factoren bij de herstructurering van een overheidsorganisatie? 8. Tijdens een herstructurering zijn er verscheidene factoren die moeten worden meegenomen, waaronder de factor mens. Indien er mensen zijn die bij de herstructurering moeite hebben met de veranderingen hoe overtuigt u hen van de noodzaak van deze veranderingen? 9. Speelt de grootte van een organisatie ook een rol bij de herstructurering? 10. Zo ja, zou u dat verder kunnen toelichten waarom de grootte een rol speelt?
11a. Zou u een voorbeeld kunnen geven van een herstructurering binnen een bedrijf/ organisatie waar een deel van het personeel niet bereid was mee te gaan met de veranderingen die doorgevoerd zouden worden? 11b. Hoe ging u met deze situatie om? 12. Met uw ervaring als consultant hoe lang duurt het ongeveer alvorens een nieuwe structuur binnen een organisatie kan worden doorgevoerd? 55
13a. Heeft u in de praktijk ook situaties meegemaakt waarbij een herstructurering niet is gelukt? 13b. Zo ja, zou u hiervan een voorbeeld kunnen geven? 13c. Zou u eveneens kunnen aangeven welke factoren van invloed zijn geweest bij het falen van de reorganisatie?
Vragen met betrekking tot de herstructurering binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering 14. Binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering is het idee ontstaan van het transformeren van de organisatie structuur van een bureaucratisch systeem naar een matrix organisatie. Een van de redenen hiervoor is omdat er binnen de organisatie voornamelijk wordt gedaan aan project management. Hoe denkt u hierover? 15. Het doel van deze herstructurering is dat er binnen het directoraat effectiever gewerkt zal worden, beter gefunctioneerd zal worden en dat ook de communicatielijnen verbeterd zullen worden. Denkt u dat deze doelen bereikt zouden kunnen worden met behulp van deze herstructurering? 16. Wat zouden volgens u de voor- en nadelen kunnen zijn van deze herstructurering? 17. Welke factoren zouden volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren zijn bij dit herstructureringsproces? 18. Welke factoren zouden volgens u een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor het herstructureringsproces? 19. Heeft u enig idee hoe lang deze herstructurering zou kunnen duren? 20. Indien u gevraagd zou worden om het herstructureringsplan te schrijven en uit te voeren voor het directoraat ontwikkelingsfinanciering, hoe zou u dit aanpakken? 21. Denkt u dat in de toekomst dit model geïmplementeerd zou kunnen worden in meerdere overheidsinstanties?
56
Appendix D Interview Respondent 4: Algemene vragen achtergrond Respondent 4 en herstructurering 1. Zou u mij iets meer kunnen vertellen over uw achtergrond en uw werkzaamheden? 2. Wat verstaat u onder de term herstructurering? 3. Heeft u zelf enige ervaringen met herstructurering en zo ja, zou u iets meer hierover kunnen vertellen? (eventueel een voorbeeld geven) 4. Wanneer bent u zelf van mening dat een organisatie/ bedrijf toe is aan een herstructurering? 5. Indien er binnen een organisatie/ bedrijf sprake zal zijn van een herstructurering, hoe pakt u dit aan? 6. Wat is het verschil tussen de herstructurering binnen een particuliere organisatie en de herstructurering binnen een publieke organisatie? 7. Wat zijn de meest uitdagende factoren bij de herstructurering van een overheidsorganisatie? 8. Tijdens een herstucturering zijn er verscheidene factoren die moeten worden meegenomen, waaronder de factor mens. Indien er mensen zijn die bij de herstructurering moeite hebben met de veranderingen hoe overtuigt u hen van de noodzaak van deze veranderingen? 9. Speelt de grootte van een organisatie volgens u ook een rol bij de herstructurering? 10. Zo ja, zou u dat verder kunnen toelichten waarom de grootte een rol speelt?
Vragen met betrekking tot de herstructurering binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering 11a. Binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering is het idee ontstaan van het transformeren van de organisatie structuur van een bureaucratisch systeem naar een matrix organisatie. Een van de redenen hiervoor is omdat er binnen de organisatie voornamelijk wordt gedaan aan project management. Bent u bekend met de matrix organisatie structuur? 11b. Zo ja, hoe denkt u over deze organisatie structuur?
57
11c. Wat is uw mening over het eventuele tranformatie proces waarbij men zou gaan van een bureaucratische organisatie naar een matrix organisatie?
12. Het doel van deze herstructurering is dat er binnen het directoraat effectiever gewerkt zal worden, beter gefunctioneerd zal worden en dat ook de communicatielijnen verbeterd zullen worden. Denkt u dat deze doelen bereikt zouden kunnen worden met behulp van deze herstructurering?
13. Wat zouden volgens u de voor- en nadelen kunnen zijn van deze herstructurering? 14. Welke factoren zouden volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren zijn bij dit herstructureringsproces? 15. Welke factoren zouden volgens u een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor het herstructureringsproces? 16. Heeft u enig idee hoe lang deze herstructurering zou kunnen duren? 17. Indien u gevraagd zou worden om het herstructureringsplan te schrijven en uit te voeren voor het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering, hoe zou u dit aanpakken? 18. Denkt u dat in de toekomst dit model geïmplementeerd zou kunnen worden binnen meerdere overheidsinstanties?
58
Appendix E Interview Respondent 5 1a. Wat is uw mening omtrent de huidige structuur binnen het ministerie? 1b. Wat zijn volgens u de sterke punten van de organisatie? 1c. Wat zijn volgens u de zwakke punten van de organisatie?
2.Zou u ten aanzien van het bureaucratisch systeem uw visie kunnen geven?
3. Hoe bent u gekomen tot het besluit om de huidige organisatiestructuur om te laten zetten in een matrix organisatie? 4. Waarom bent u van mening dat een matrix organisatie een idealer model zou zijn dan het huidige bureaucratische model dat al jaren wordt gehanteerd binnen de overheid?
5. Bent u van mening dat er enige factoren zouden kunnen zijn die een belemmering kunnen vormen voor de herstructurering van de organisatie? Zo ja, zou u deze factoren kunnen noemen en in uw eigen woorden kunnen motiveren? 6. Indien u werd voorgedragen om dit plan te implementeren welke stappen zou u ondernemen? 7. Bij verandering binnen een organisatie dient ook de factor mens te worden meegenomen. Hoe zou u uw personeel als manager/ directeur motiveren om mee te gaan met deze veranderingen? 8. Twee belangrijke factoren binnen de matrix organisatie structuur zijn de snelle besluitvorming en daarnaast zeer transparante communicatielijnen. Daarnaast is de flexibiliteit van elk personeelslid een vereiste. Binnen het bureaucratisch systeem is er meestal sprake van onder andere een trage besluitvorming. Denkt u dat het voor uw personeel een enorme uitdaging zou zijn om dit nieuwe systeem te aanvaarden? Zou u dit kunnen motiveren? 9. Een ander kenmerk van een matrixorganisatie is dat er verantwoording moet worden afgelegd aan twee personen. Op het moment bent u degene aan wie er verantwoording moet worden afgelegd binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering. Hoe denkt u dat uw
59
personeel om zal gaan met het feit dat zij verantwoording zal moeten afleggen aan twee personen binnen de nieuwe structuur? 10a. Wat zijn uw verwachtingen van de nieuwe structuur die geïmplementeerd zal worden? 10b. Welke additionele factoren zouden volgens u meegenomen moeten worden binnen het herstructureringsproces? 11. Binnen het directoraat wordt er voornamelijk gewerkt met donor projecten. Welke voordelen zou dit nieuwe organisatiemodel volgens u kunnen hebben ten opzichte van het bureaucratisch systeem? 12. Bent u van mening dat indien de implementatie van dit model slaagt dat het eventueel binnen de rest van het ambtenarenapparaat geïmplementeerd zou kunnen worden? Zou u dit kunnen motiveren?
60
Appendix F Interview Respondent 6: Algemene vragen achtergrond respondent en change management 1. Zou u mij iets meer kunnen vertellen over uw achtergrond en uw werkzaamheden? 2. Wat verstaat u onder de term “change management”? 3. Waarom is het volgens u belangrijk dat er wordt gedaan aan “change management” bij het implementeren van veranderingen binnen een organisatie? 4. Welke stappen (welk proces) moeten volgens u ondernomen worden bij het invoeren van “change management” binnen een organisatie? 5. Heeft u zelf enige ervaringen met “change management” binnen uw werk opgedaan en zo ja, zou u iets meer hierover kunnen vertellen? (eventueel een voorbeeld geven) 6. Bij de implementatie van veranderingen binnen een organisatie kan het weleens voorkomen dat er tegenstand wordt geboden door organisatieleden. Waarom denkt u dat er bij personen vrees ontstaat voor veranderingen?
7a. Door de vrees die mensen hebben voor veranderingen ontstaat er vaak tegenstand ofwel “resistance to change”. Wat verstaat u zelf onder de term “resistance to change”? 7b. Hoe kan het beste met deze tegenstand/”resistance” worden omgesprongen binnen een organisatie waar veranderingen worden doorgevoerd?
8.Heeft u binen uw werkervaring ook te doen gehad met tegenstand van personen binnen een organisatie? Zo ja, zou u hiervan eventueel een voorbeeld kunnen geven?
9. Is het binnen uw werk ooit voorgekomen dat de “resistance” van het personeel zo groot was dat de verdere invoering van “change management” problematisch werd? Zo ja, hoe bent u hiermee omgegaan?
10 Bestaat er volgens u enig verschil tussen “resistance to change” binnen een particuliere organisatie en “resistance to change” binnen een publieke organisatie? 61
11 Wat zijn volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren bij het doorvoeren van “change management” binnen een organisatie? 12 Binnen “change management” is ook de motivatie van het personeel erg belangrijk. Welke tools zouden volgens u kunnen worden gebruikt om het personeel te motiveren?
Vraag met betrekking tot de herstructurering en “change management” binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering 13. Binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering is het idee ontstaan van het transformeren van de organisatie structuur van een bureaucratisch systeem naar een matrix organisatie. Een van de redenen hiervoor is omdat er binnen de organisatie voornamelijk wordt gedaan aan project management. Echter is de afdeling in de afgelopen maanden reeds onderhevig geweest aan vele veranderingen, met name de ontmanteling van het ministerie van Planning en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, met als gevolg de overgang naar het huidige directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering. Er was toen een periode van onduidelijkheid die tot veel verwarring en onzekerheid heeft geleid waardoor er ook enige demotivatie ontstond onder de personeelsleden. Hoe had men volgens u de situatie toen moeten aanpakken? 14. Indien men er nu toe over wil gaan om het directoraat te herstructureren, hoe zou volgens u de aanpak moeten zijn met betrekking tot de factor “change management” na de veranderingen en ervaringen van de afgelopen periode? 15. Wat zijn volgens u de belangrijkste factoren waarmee er rekening gehouden zal moeten worden bij de eventuele herstructurering van het directoraat? 16. Gezien de huidige situatie binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering, welke factoren zouden volgens u de meeste bedreigingen kunnen vormen binnen het “change management” proces?
62
Appendix G Interview Respondent 7: 1. Hoe denkt u over de huidige organisatiestructuur van het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering en zijn er zaken die u graag verander zou willen zien? 2. Binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering is het idee ontstaan voor een herstructurering. Hierbij wil men overstappen van het bureaucratisch model naar het matrix organisatie model vooral omdat er veel met projecten wordt gewerkt. Wat is uw mening hierover? 3. U heeft zelf ook ervaring met de uitvoering van projecten. Gezien uw ervaring met project management, denkt u dat de implementatie van de nieuwe organisatiestructuur zou kunnen zorgen voor meer efficiency, een beter functioneren van de werknemers en betere resultaten binnen de projectuitvoering? 4. Bent u van mening dat er enige factoren zouden kunnen zijn die een belemmering kunnen vormen voor de herstructurering van het directoraat? Zo ja, zou u deze factoren in uw eigen woorden kunnen motiveren? 5. Indien u werd voorgedragen om dit plan te implementeren welke stappen zou u ondernemen? 6. Bij verandering binnen een organisatie dient ook de factor mens te worden meegenomen. In de praktijk is het vaker gebleken dat men moeilijk kan omgaan met veranderingen. Hoe zou u uw personeel als minister motiveren om mee te gaan met deze veranderingen? 7. Twee belangrijke factoren binnen de matrix organisatie structuur zijn de snelle besluitvorming en daarnaast zeer transparante communicatielijnen. Daarnaast is de flexibiliteit van elk personeelslid een vereiste. Binnen het bureaucratisch systeem is er meestal sprake van onder andere een trage besluitvorming. Denkt u dat het voor uw personeel een enorme uitdaging zou zijn om dit nieuwe systeem te aanvaarden? Zou u dit kunnen motiveren? 8. Een andere kenmerk van een matrixorganisatie is dat er verantwoording moet worden afgelegd aan twee personen. Op het moment bent u degene aan wie er verantwoording moet worden afgelegd op het ministerie Hoe denkt u dat uw personeel om zal gaan met het feit dat zij verantwoording zal moeten afleggen aan twee personen binnen de nieuwe structuur? 9. Binnen het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering wordt er voornamelijk gewerkt met donor projecten. Welke voordelen zou dit nieuwe organisatiemodel volgens u kunnen hebben ten opzichte van het bureaucratisch systeem? 63
10. Bent u van mening dat indien de implementatie van dit model slaagt dat het eventueel binnen de rest van het ambtenarenapparaat geïmplementeerd zou kunnen worden? Zou u dit kunnen motiveren?
64
Appendix H Interview Respondent 8: Algemene vragen 1. Zou u mij iets meer kunnen vertellen over uw achtergrond? 2. In de periode 2005 tot en met 2010 bent u zelf minister geweest van het voormalig ministerie van Planning en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking. Hoe heeft u deze periode “management-wise” ervaren? 3. Wat waren volgens u zelf de sterke en zwakke punten van het ministerie?
4a. Zijn er binnen uw periode als minister op het gebied van management ook veranderingen doorgevoerd binnen het ministerie? Zo ja, wat waren deze veranderingen? 4b. Zou u eventueel kunnen motiveren wat de noodzaak is geweest voor deze veranderingen? 4c. Hoe is het personeel toen met deze veranderingen omgegaan?
5.Er werd heel vaak gezegd dat het ministerie van PLOS in uw periode een van de best draaiende ministeries was. Daarnaast werd er in de media ook vaker aangehaald dat u een van de best functionerende ministers was. Wat is volgens u het geheim geweest van uw succes als minister en van het ministerie als overheidsinstantie?
6. Zijn er volgens u toch zaken geweest in die periode die u toch veranderd zou willen zien?
Algemene vragen herstructurering 7. Wat verstaat u onder de term herstructurering? 8. Heeft u zelf enige ervaringen met herstructurering en zo ja, zou u iets meer hierover kunnen vertellen? (eventueel een voorbeeld geven) 9. Wanneer bent u zelf van mening dat een organisatie/ bedrijf toe is aan een herstructurering?
65
10. Indien er binnen een organisatie/ bedrijf sprake zal zijn van een herstructurering, hoe pakt u dit aan? 11. Wat is het verschil tussen de herstructurering binnen een particuliere organisatie en de herstructurering binnen een publieke organisatie?
Vragen met betrekking tot de herstructurering binnen het directoraat ontwikkelingsfinanciering 12a. Binnen het opkomende directoraat ontwikkelingsfinanciering is het idee ontstaan van het transformeren van de organisatie structuur van het huidige systeem naar een matrix organisatie. Een van de redenen hiervoor is omdat er binnen de organisatie voornamelijk wordt gedaan aan project management. Bent u bekend met de matrix organisatie structuur?
12b. Zo ja, hoe denkt u over deze organisatie structuur?
12c. Als oud minister van PLOS, wat is uw mening over het eventuele transformatie proces waarbij men zou gaan van de huidige organisatie naar een matrix organisatie?
13. Het doel van deze herstructurering is dat er binnen het directoraat effectiever gewerkt zal worden, beter gefunctioneerd zal worden en dat ook de communicatielijnen verbeterd zullen worden. Denkt u dat deze doelen bereikt zouden kunnen worden met behulp van deze herstructurering? 14. Wat zouden volgens u de voor- en nadelen kunnen zijn van deze herstructurering? 15. Welke factoren zouden volgens u de meest uitdagende factoren zijn bij dit herstructureringsproces? 16. Welke factoren zouden volgens u een bedreiging kunnen vormen voor het herstructureringsproces? 17. Indien u als minister dit herstructureringsproces zou moeten doorvoeren binnen het directoraat, hoe zou u dit proces aanpakken? 18. Bij het doorvoeren van veranderingen binnen een organisatie zoals het herstructureringsproces, dient er ook rekening te worden gehouden met de factor mens. 66
Echter is het vaak zo dat binnen een organisatie personen angst hebben voor veranderingen. Op welke wijze zou u het personeel motiveren om mee te gaan met veranderingen die u zou willen doorvoeren binnen de organisatie? 19. Gezien uw ervaring als minister, heeft u enig idee hoe lang dit herstructureringsproces zou kunnen duren indien het doorgevoerd zou worden op de directoraat ontwikkelingsfinanciering? 20. Denkt u dat in de toekomst dit model geïmplementeerd zou kunnen worden binnen meerdere overheidsinstanties? 21. Heeft u als oud minister tenslotte nog enig management advies welke zou kunnen worden meegenomen binnen het functioneren van de nieuwe directoraat ontwikkelingsfinanciering?
67
Appendix I Introductie Beste collega, hierbij treft u een enquêteformulier aan in het kader van mijn afstudeeronderzoek aan het FHR Lim A Po instituut. Dit afstudeeronderzoek heeft betrekking op de mogelijke transformatie van het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering van haar huidige organisatiestructuur naar een matrixorganisatie. Deze enquête maakt onderdeel uit van dit onderzoek. Het doel van deze enquête is om de bevindingen van het personeel te inventariseren over de huidige organisatiestructuur, de omstandigheden op de werkvloer en hoe het staat tegenover een eventuele verandering. Gaarne zou ik uw medewerking willen vragen bij het invullen van dit enquêteformulier. Mocht u vragen hebben of zijn zaken onduidelijk, dan kunt u mij bereiken op het telefoonnummer 8599289 of mij emailen op
[email protected]. Daarnaast kunt u ook persoonlijk bij mij langslopen. Bij voorbaat zeg ik u dank voor uw medewerking!
Met vriendelijke groet, Raissa van Varsseveld Junior Coordinator EU Desk
A. Persoonlijke gegevens (deze worden niet prijs gegeven in het verslag) Functie: …………………………………………………………………………...
Leeftijd:
□
20-30 jaar
□
31-40 jaar
□
41-50 jaar
□
51-60 jaar
□
60 jaar >
68
Opleiding:
□
HAVO/ IMEAO/ VWO
□
HBO / Universitair
B. Overgang Ministerie van Planning en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking naar het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering 1a. Als u de vorige structuur vergelijkt met de huidige welke vond u beter?
□ □ □ □
De vorige structuur was beter Ze zijn beide gelijk De huidige structuur is beter
Anders..............................................................................*
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
69
1b. Bent u van mening dat de organisatiestructuur van het voormalig ministerie werkbaar was?
□
Ja
□
Nee
□
Anders..............................................................................*
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2. De overgang/transformatie van het ministerie van Planning en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking naar het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering heb ik ervaren als:
□
Positief, de verandering was zeker noodzakelijk
□
In het begin was het even wennen, maar ik had er geen bezwaar tegen
□
Redelijk, ik was het niet eens met alle veranderingen in de structuur
□
Negatief, het viel enorm tegen
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
70
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3a. Als u terugkijkt naar de afgelopen maanden zou er iets zijn dat volgens u anders aangepakt had moeten worden binnen de veranderingsprocedure van PLOS naar het directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering?
□
Ja ( zo ja, doorgaan naar vraag 3b)
□
Nee (zo nee, vraag 3b overslaan)
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
71
3b. Wat had er volgens u anders aangepakt moeten worden?
□
Communicatie naar het personeel toe
□
De planning met betrekking tot de wijziging van de structuur
□
De transformatie had niet doorgevoerd moeten worden
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
C. Huidige organisatiestructuur en werksituatie directoraat Ontwikkelingsfinanciering 4. In welke mate bent u tevreden met de huidige organisatie?
□
Zeer tevreden
□
Matig
□
Zeer ontevreden
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
72
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5
Ik ben van mening dat de huidige situatie op de werkvloer:
□
Mij bevalt, ik ben gemotiveerd om mijn werk te doen
□
Redelijk te noemen is, het kan altijd beter
□
Tegenvalt, ik ben niet gemotiveerd om mijn werk te doen
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
73
6a. De sterkste punten van ons directoraat zijn:
□
Communicatie
□
Project Management
□
Het personeel
□
Team work
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6b. De zwakste punten van ons directoraat
□
Communicatie
□
Project Management
□
Team work
□
Werkdruk
□
Faciliteiten
74
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
D. Veranderingen binnen de organisatie/ werkomgeving 7. Hoe staat u tegenover veranderingen binnen de organisatie/ werkomgeving?
□
Ik sta open voor elke verandering en stel me flexibel op
□
Ik sta alleen maar open voor veranderingen waar ik voordelen aan heb
□
Ik sta afwijzend tegenover veranderingen
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
75
8. Wat is voor u belangrijk bij het doorvoeren van veranderingen binnen een organisatie?
□
Voor mij moet het duidelijk zijn welke voordelen ik heb aan de veranderingen
□
Goede communicatie om een duidelijk beeld te hebben van de uitkomst
□
Ik moet ook betrokken zijn bij het veranderingsproces binnen de organisatie
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
9a. Er is een voorstel gedaan voor het transformeren van de afdeling van zijn huidige structuur naar een matrix organisatie. Weet u wat de matrix organisatie is?
□
Ja
□
Niet zo goed, maar heb er wel van gehoord
□
Nee
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
9b. Hoe staat u tegenover deze eventuele veranderingen?
□
Ik heb geen bezwaar tegen deze veranderingen en sta er positief tegenover
76
□
Ik wacht de veranderingen rustig af en laat het allemaal over me heen komen
□
Ik ben nogal skeptisch. Voor mij zijn de veranderingen nog onduidelijk
□
Ik zie de veranderingen totaal niet zitten en blijf liever functioneren binnen de huidige structuur
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
10. Een belangrijk kenmerk van de matrix organisatie is dat er verantwoording moet worden afgelegd aan twee verantwoordelijken. Wat is uw mening hierover?
□
Met een heldere taakverdeling en duidelijke afspraken is dit werkbaar
□
Ik heb geen geloof in dit systeem. Het kan alleen maar voor verwarring zorgen
□
Ik weet het niet zeker. De praktijk zal wel uitwijzen of dit systeem inderdaad werkbaar is
□
Anders.............................................................................. *
Ruimte voor uw eigen opmerkingen: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
77
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
* = Gaarne uw antwoord toelichten
--------------------------------- Bedankt voor uw medewerking ---------------------------
78
Appendix J Bar chart results survey Directory of Development Finance Q1a 80
60
40
Percent
20
0 .00
They are both equal The previous structu
Other
Q1a: Comparison previous and current organization structure
Q1a: Comparison previ ous and current organization structure
Valid
Missing Total
.00 The prev ious structure was better They are bot h equal Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 1
Percent 2.4
Valid Percent 4.2
Cumulat iv e Percent 4.2
17
40.5
70.8
75.0
3 3 24 18 42
7.1 7.1 57.1 42.9 100.0
12.5 12.5 100.0
87.5 100.0
79
Q1b 100
80
60
40
Percent
20
0 .00
Yes
Q1b: Was the previous organization structure of the ministry workable?
Q1b: Was the previous organization structure of the mi nistry workable?
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Yes Total Sy stem
Frequency 2 22 24 18 42
Percent 4.8 52.4 57.1 42.9 100.0
Valid Percent 8.3 91.7 100.0
Cumulat iv e Percent 8.3 100.0
80
Q2 40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
I had to get used to Posit ive, the change
Negative, the change
Average: I didn't ag
Other
Q2: Experience transformation ministry of PLOS to dir. DF
Q2: Experience transformation ministry of PLOS to directorate of Development Fi nance
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Positiv e, t he changes were required I had to get used to the changes in the beginning Av erage: I didn't agree with all the struct ure changes Negativ e, the changes weren't easy Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 2
Percent 4.8
Valid Percent 8.3
Cumulat iv e Percent 8.3
2
4.8
8.3
16.7
6
14.3
25.0
41.7
6
14.3
25.0
66.7
7
16.7
29.2
95.8
1 24 18 42
2.4 57.1 42.9 100.0
4.2 100.0
100.0
81
Q3a 100
80
60
40
Percent
20
0 .00
Yes
Q3a: Would you add changes to the transformation process PLOS-dir. Devel
Q3a: Would you add changes to the transformation process PLOS-dir. Developm. Finance
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Yes Total Sy stem
Frequency 4 20 24 18 42
Percent 9.5 47.6 57.1 42.9 100.0
Valid Percent 16.7 83.3 100.0
Cumulat iv e Percent 16.7 100.0
82
Q3b 30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
The planning w th reg Communication w ith t
Other
The transformation s
Q3b: What would you have done differently?
Q3b: What would you have done differently?
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Communication wit h the personnel The planning wth regard to the st ructure changes The transf ormation should not hav e been implement ed Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 3
Percent 7.1
Valid Percent 12.5
Cumulat iv e Percent 12.5
6
14.3
25.0
37.5
6
14.3
25.0
62.5
5
11.9
20.8
83.3
4 24 18 42
9.5 57.1 42.9 100.0
16.7 100.0
100.0
83
Q4 70
60
50
40
30
Percent
20
10
0 .00
Average
Very unsatisfied
Other
Q4: To what extend are you satisfied with the current situation
Q4: To what extend are you satisfied wi th the current situation
Valid
Missing Total
Frequency .00 1 Av erage 14 Very unsatisf ied 5 Other 4 Total 24 Sy stem 18 42
Percent 2.4 33.3 11.9 9.5 57.1 42.9 100.0
Valid Percent 4.2 58.3 20.8 16.7 100.0
Cumulat iv e Percent 4.2 62.5 83.3 100.0
84
Q5 70
60
50
40
30
Percent
20
10 0 .00
Is average, it can a Does suit me very w e
Other
Is unsatisfying, I a
Q5: I am of the opinion that the current situation on the work floor: Q5: I am of the opinion that the current situation on the work floor:
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Does suit me v ery well, I am motiv at ed to do my job Is av erage, it can alway s be better Is unsatisf y ing, I am not motiv ated t o do my job Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 2
Percent 4.8
Valid Percent 8.3
Cumulat iv e Percent 8.3
2
4.8
8.3
16.7
14
33.3
58.3
75.0
5
11.9
20.8
95.8
1 24 18 42
2.4 57.1 42.9 100.0
4.2 100.0
100.0
85
Q6a 40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
Project Management Communication
Team Work
The personnel
Other
Q6a: The strengths of the directorate are:
Q6a: The strengths of the di rectorate are:
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Communication Project Management The personnel Team Work Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 1 4 1 5 9 4 24 18 42
Percent 2.4 9.5 2.4 11.9 21.4 9.5 57.1 42.9 100.0
Valid Percent 4.2 16.7 4.2 20.8 37.5 16.7 100.0
Cumulativ e Percent 4.2 20.8 25.0 45.8 83.3 100.0
86
Q6b 40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
Work pressure Communic ation
Other Facilities
Q6b: The weaknesses of the directorate are:
Q6b: The weaknesses of the directorate are:
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Communication Work pressure Facilit ies Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 3 7 2 4 8 24 18 42
Percent 7.1 16.7 4.8 9.5 19.0 57.1 42.9 100.0
Valid Percent 12.5 29.2 8.3 16.7 33.3 100.0
Cumulat iv e Percent 12.5 41.7 50.0 66.7 100.0
87
Q7 100
80
60
40
Percent
20
0 .00
I only stand open fo I stand open for any
Other
Q7: How do you feel about change within the directorate?
Q7: How do you feel about change within the directorate?
Valid
Missing Total
.00 I stand open f or any changes, and hav e a f lexible approach I only st and open f or changes which I can benif it f rom Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 1
Percent 2.4
Valid Percent 4.2
Cumulat iv e Percent 4.2
21
50.0
87.5
91.7
1
2.4
4.2
95.8
1 24 18 42
2.4 57.1 42.9 100.0
4.2 100.0
100.0
88
70
60
50
40
30
Percent
20
10 0 .00
Good communication t To me the advantages
Other
I would like to be i
Q8: What do you feel is of importance when implementing change
Q8: What do you feel is of importance when implementing change within the organization?
Valid
Missing Total
.00 To me the adv antages need to be clear Good communicat ion to get a clear v iew of the outcome I would like to be inv olv ed in the process Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 2
Percent 4.8
Valid Percent 8.3
Cumulat iv e Percent 8.3
1
2.4
4.2
12.5
14
33.3
58.3
70.8
4
9.5
16.7
87.5
3 24 18 42
7.1 57.1 42.9 100.0
12.5 100.0
100.0
89
Q9a 50
40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
Yes
Not very w ell, but I
No
Q9a: Are you familiar with the matrix organization structure Q9a: Are you familiar wi th the matrix organi zation structure
Valid
Missing Total
.00 Yes Not v ery well, but I hav e heard of it No Total Sy stem
Frequency 1 9
Percent 2.4 21.4
Valid Percent 4.2 37.5
Cumulat iv e Percent 4.2 41.7
11
26.2
45.8
87.5
3 24 18 42
7.1 57.1 42.9 100.0
12.5 100.0
100.0
90
Q9b 40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
I aw ait the changes I have no issue w ith
I am against the cha
I am pretty sceptic,
Other
Q9b: How do you feel about these possible changes?
Q9b: How do you feel about these possible changes?
Valid
Missing Total
.00 I hav e no issue wit h change and hav e a positiv e approach I await the changes patiently and I'll see what happens I am pretty sceptic, the changes are not y et clear I am against the changes an pref er the current structure Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 2
Percent 4.8
Valid Percent 8.3
Cumulat iv e Percent 8.3
6
14.3
25.0
33.3
2
4.8
8.3
41.7
9
21.4
37.5
79.2
3
7.1
12.5
91.7
2 24 18 42
4.8 57.1 42.9 100.0
8.3 100.0
100.0
91
60
50
40
30
20
Percent
10
0 .00
I have no believe in With a clear divisio
Other
I'm not sure. Practi
Q10: How would you feel about reporting to two bosses?
Q10: How would you feel about reporting to two bosses?
Valid
Missing Total
.00 With a clear div ision of tasks it should be workable I hav e no believ e in this sy stem. It will cause conf usion I'm not sure. Practice will show if it is workable Other Total Sy stem
Frequency 2
Percent 4.8
Valid Percent 8.3
Cumulat iv e Percent 8.3
7
16.7
29.2
37.5
1
2.4
4.2
41.7
13
31.0
54.2
95.8
1 24 18 42
2.4 57.1 42.9 100.0
4.2 100.0
100.0
92
