Co-ordinating as a management function

Described as “the harmonisation of resources in their optimum proportions in order to achieve results” (Fells 2000, p.359) the coordination function represents one of the most important aspects of the management agenda, insofar as it is directed at ensuring the efficient use of the organisation’s resources. Perhaps more importantly it underpins the process of aligning internal structures and processes with strategic objectives, which is central to environmental adaption. Furthermore, the notion of harmonisation logically has implications in terms of the creation and maintenance of a positive organisation culture which, it has already been stressed, is integral to modern management practice.

Although as Van De Ven, Delbecq, and Koenig (1997) observe that coordination mechanisms have traditionally been viewed from an organisational perspective

the fact that the majority of instrumental functions are performed at the work unit level points to a potentially richer level of analysis. Moreover, the fact that it is the coordination of these discrete but often interdependent units that is the essence of effective organisational structures and processes emphasises the need for skilful management of the process.

Focusing on coordination at this level, Van de Ven et al (1976) offer some valuable insights into the means by which coordination might be effected and the independent variables that influence and predict the process. Their paper focuses in particular on the level of communication distinguishing between impersonal, personal and group modes of coordination. Here a distinction is made between “impersonal coordination which embodies formalized [sic] rules, policies and procedures; and personal or group modes which foster vertical communication” (p.323). The former, they suggest, is achieved through a process of what is termed ‘programming’ and the latter by feedback and mutual adjustments based upon new information. The latter is consistent with the concept of a ‘learning organisation’ which is discussed in the following section.

Although, at face value, personal communication seems more representative of the new management paradigm, and thereby the most desirable approach, the extent to which any or all of these options can be exercised is not entirely discretionary. As Van de Ven et al (1976, p.324) observe, “variations in the use of coordination mechanisms are not explained solely by administrative prescriptions. There are a set of more fundamental factors that may explain the use of alternatives”.

In the first instance the difficulty and variability of the tasks undertaken by individual units, [termed task uncertainty] is directly instrumental in determining whether task activities can be standardised and programmed. “As the task increases in uncertainty it becomes more difficult to coordinate by impersonal means” Van de Ven et al (1976, p.324). Since both difficulty and variability of unit tasks could, at least in part, be attributed to changes in the external environment, the use of personal lateral communication and a culture of organisational learning are yet again reinforced as the characteristics of organisations with the highest adaptive capability.

A number of authors (Mohr 1971; Van de Ven et al 1976; Clemmons and Simon 2001) suggest that interdependence between operational units is also a key predictor of the adoption of coordination mechanisms. Although interdependence assumes a variety of dimensions, and these will be discussed here, McCann and Ferry (1979) suggest that it can be conceptualised as “the condition where the actions taken within one unit affect the actions and work outcomes of another unit” (p.114). Since the overarching management objective, oft stated in various sections of this chapter, is the alignment of resources with strategic objectives, assessing and managing inter-unit interdependencies seems central to the process.

Such additional dimensions include the frequency, scale and value of exchanges between work units (McCann and Ferry 1979), whether the work flows are part of a unidirectional exchange process; are reciprocal in nature; or are characterised by work units producing independent outcomes as contributions to the organisation (Thompson 1967 in Victor and Blackburn 1987). Although to some extent this is viewed as being essentially ‘production’ centric, its applicability to service industries can not be ignored. In the context of this study for example, the contribution made by specific task units to the overall visitor experience can be clearly discerned.

Interdependence

Mc Cann and Ferry (1979) add yet another perspective in observing that interdependence may be moderated by each unit’s perceptions of its transactional interdependence. These may be either congruent [both units perceive the same level of interdependence], or incongruent [one unit perceives one level of interdependence

likely to give rise to conflict. Since discussion in other sections of this chapter have emphasised the importance of positive organisational culture and shared vision, overcoming such barriers to effective coordination appears central to effective operation. It has implications too, with respect to organisational structure either in terms of prevailing structures’ impact on effective coordination; or the management challenge associated with ensuring that structures facilitate effective coordination.

The defining factor however, appears to be degrees of interdependence. Cheng (1983, p.158) was able to demonstrate strong support for the hypothesis that “the relationship between coordination and organisational performance will become stronger as the level of interdependence increases”. The suggestion that a positive correlation exists between organisational size, complexity, and degrees of interdependence (Van de Ven et al 1976) points to the final determinant of coordination mode, namely the size of both individual work units, and the organisation overall.

Organisational size

Much of the early literature with respect to size as a determinant of co-ordination mode focused on changes in administrative intensity (see for example Pondy 1969, Klatsky 1970; Ford and Slocum 1977; Dalton, Todor, Sendolini, Fielding, and Porter 1980), the fact that this, in itself, may be a product of increased complexity and task differentiation offers some useful insights into the link between the intricacies of the coordination function and organisational size. Ford and Slocum (1977) declare that “the basic assumption that underlies research on administrative intensity is that increases in size [number of people] lead to increases in control and coordination requirements”. Pondy (1969) in particular points to empirical research supporting the contention that increases in the ratio of administrative personnel are symptomatic of increased co- ordination problems arising from greater task complexity and greater division of labor.

The fundamental premise, namely, that as organisations increase in size and structural complexity there may be some diminution of flexibility, and thereby ability to adapt, suggests that performance may be challenged by coordination problems arising from increasing organisational size. Although Dalton et al (1980) point to some debate as to the causal link between increases in administrative intensity and productivity; on the basis of an exhaustive review of the literature they concede that “the relationship between administrative intensity and performance remains undetermined” (p.57).

With respect to organisational size specifically, Beyer and Trice (1979) point to a similar polarity of views divided between theories of organisational structure that treats size as the primary cause of complexity (principally Blau 1970; Meyer 1972); and studies which appear to support the contention that the relationship is somewhat more intricate (see for example Ford and Slocum 1977). There are theoretical issues too with respect to whether, as Meyer (1972 p.434) questions “size precedes other organisational attributes” or whether the antithetical proposition applies.

Expressed as a broad proposition, however, there appears to be broad consensus that, as an organisation increases in size, there will be corresponding increases in structural differentiation and organisational complexity rendering effective coordination more problematic. Blau’s authoritative work (1970) explicitly supports the causal link between size, differentiation, and effects on coordination.`

Fayol’s (1984) vision of effective coordination as a force for internal harmony and resource maximisation elevates this management function to a position of importance. Arguably the entire process of devising and executing strategy; gauging the relative success of such initiatives; and taking corrective action is underpinned by management’s ability to foster collaboration and communication between designated work units.