Modelo Metodológico

When decentralization is high and formalization is high, there are two possible approaches for designing coordination and control systems. Though these have common attributes, they are sufficiently different approaches to coordination to warrant separate discussion. The clan model tends toward somewhat greater formalization and less decentralization. The clan model uses strong norms to guide how work is done, and these norms are deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of employees no matter where they reside in the organization. Employees are selected based on their likelihood of conforming to norms, which then are communicated through training manuals and other formal means. In addition, rules for coordination and control area are communicated via extensive modeling by both workers and managers and in discussions of “the way we do things” during the everyday life of the organization (Ouchi, 1980). There are strong expectations, and attention is given to designing systems that communicate these norms on an everyday basis. Written rules and procedures establish a minimal set of necessary standards from which

people can design work routines on an as-needed basis to meet changing work demands. In this way, the clan model tends to be more flexible than the machine model.

Southwest Airlines with its colorful CEO, Herb Kellerher, developed a very successful clan type of model on which highly efficient and effective coordin- ation and control systems have been built. The firm is famous for selecting happy, fun-loving employees who interact well with customers and value high efficiency and high quality of service that continually improves over time. The airline is widely distributed across the US and operates in a disciplined but not bureaucratic fashion. Employees are well versed in a minimal, basic set of guidelines from which they can then make decisions that meet customer needs. The firm insists on high quality standards, and there is also a high degree of consistency that results from formalization of rules and procedures. People work together as a strong community with common values (Gittell, 2003). These common values provide the basis for coordination and control systems. The success of a clan depends heavily on having leaders who communicate a strong set of norms and values that underlie how work is to be accomplished, and on selecting and training employees who are versed in those norms. At the same time, the people inside the clan don’t feel trapped or suppressed. Instead, they are loyal to the organization and work together for high efficiency and effectiveness. The Swedish furniture giant IKEA is another example of an effective use of a clan model for coordination and control. It developed “the IKEA way” of doing business, which consists of a written set of principles for doing business. These are standard throughout the world and strictly enforced, yet there is also managerial and employee freedom to take needed steps to meet customer needs that vary across countries and around the world.

The mosaic model for coordination and control tends toward somewhat greater decentralization and less formalization than the clan model, although it remains high on formalization and decentralization relative to the models reviewed earlier. In the mosaic model there is a greater tendency for hetero- geneity (rather than similarity) of systems than in the clan model. Coordination and control systems – including the rules that they embed – are not identical throughout the organization. Instead, they vary as a function of the subunit. Again, this is a matter of degree. The company may have one inventory system for all its operations worldwide, but if it is a mosaic, then it does not attempt to have all of its coordination and control systems (e.g., accounting, human resources, performance measurement, knowledge-management systems) standardized throughout the firm. Instead, common standards are minimized,

and all remaining standards and methods of monitoring are customized to meet the needs of subunits. To allow effective coordination across the firm as a whole, the organization attempts to keep disparate systems as compatible as possible; the various coordination and control systems are not loose or scattered; instead, they fit together into a meaningful whole, much like a mosaic.

Unilever takes a mosaic approach as it fosters heterogeneity across countries/ regions and product lines, yet it integrates its disparate systems with a strong managerial infrastructure of interdependency. Hence there is a holistic quality to the organization – it is more than a collection of cells or business units that operate with their own coordination and control systems.

Using the mosaic model, if the organization decides to change its coordin- ation or control systems in one area of the firm, it is not necessary that the entire firm change its systems too. The mosaic approach allows disparate systems across the enterprise to change much like a kaleidoscope. The pieces move together. Although the change process may appear blurry, it is nonethe- less systematic. As you can see, a mosaic model for systems design is difficult to achieve. The approach requires what Powley et al. (2004) described as a dialogic democracy, that is, extensive two-way communication across subunits of the firm to assure that the needs of the whole are met even as the customized coordination and control systems are developed for subunits.