assigns 1,2,3 and 4

solving among the departments in the plant. The structure also seems to provide team members with the freedom necessary to regulate their task behaviors in the meetings. They can adjust their behaviors and interactions to suit the flow of the discussion and problem-solving process.

a p

p lica

tio n

5 2

TOP-MANAGEMENT TEAM AT ORTIV GLASS CORPORATION

T he Ortiv Glass Corporation produces and markets plate glass for use primarily in the construction and automotive industries. The multiplant company has been involved

in OD for several years and actively supports par- ticipative management practices and employee involvement programs. Ortiv’s organization design is relatively flexible, and the manufacturing plants are given freedom and encouragement to develop their own organization designs and approaches to participative management. It recently put together a problem-solving group made up of the top-management team at its newest plant.

The team consisted of the plant manager and the managers of the five functional departments reporting to him: engineering (maintenance), administration, human resources, production, and quality control. In recruiting managers for the new plant, the company selected people with good technical skills and experience in their respective functions. It also chose people with some managerial experience and a desire to solve problems collaboratively, a hallmark of par- ticipative management. The team was relatively new, and members had been working together for only about five months.

The team met formally for two hours each week to share pertinent information and to deal with plantwide issues affecting all of the departments, such as safety procedures, inter- departmental relations, and personnel prac- tices. Members described these meetings as informative but often chaotic in terms of deci- sion making. The meetings typically started late as members straggled in at different times. The latecomers generally offered excuses about more pressing problems occur- ring elsewhere in the plant. Once started, the

meetings were often interrupted by “urgent” phone messages for various members, includ- ing the plant manager, and in most cases, the recipient would leave the meeting hurriedly to respond to the call.

The group had problems arriving at clear decisions on particular issues. Discussions often rambled from topic to topic, and mem- bers tended to postpone the resolution of pro- blems to future meetings. This led to a backlog of unresolved issues, and meetings often lasted far beyond the two-hour limit. When group decisions were made, members often reported problems in their implementation. Members typically failed to follow through on agreements, and there was often confusion about what had actually been agreed upon. Everyone expressed dissatisfaction with the team meetings and their results.

Relationships among team members were cordial yet somewhat strained, especially when the team was dealing with complex issues in which members had varying opinions and interests. Although the plant manager pub- licly stated that he wanted to hear all sides of the issues, he often interrupted the discussion or attempted to change the topic when mem- bers openly disagreed in their views of the problem. This interruption was typically fol- lowed by an awkward silence in the group. In many instances, when a solution to a pressing problem did not appear forthcoming, members either moved on to another issue or they infor- mally voted on proposed options, letting major- ity rule decide the outcome. Members rarely discussed the need to move on or vote; rather, these behaviors emerged informally over time and became acceptable ways of dealing with difficult issues.

110 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT