Definition of Responsibility, Authority, and Accountability for Each Executive Position

Provision must be made for the clear written definition of responsibility, authority, and accountability for each executive position at a minimum. This is not automatically understood or properly implemented in many companies. Not all managers know whom they report to or are sure who reports to them. The manager report to its three bosses. This cannot possibly promote organizational harmony and a strong esprit de corps.

Some managers forget there is an organization structure in dealing with subordinates. While this can be justifiable in rare situations of expediency or emergency, it is an undesirable habit to get into because it undermines the authority and reduces the effectiveness of subordinate managers. In one such situation, the chief union representative made it a point to visit the company president with a grievance. The president promptly resolved the grievance in the union favor without checking first with the foreman, superintendent, or industrial relations manager. That company ended up with more than a thousand formal, written, unresolved grievances because the chief executive bypassed the formal lines of authority. And this single act virtually destroyed the morale of the first-line supervisors. Top executives must exercise control through attention to policy matters and problems of exceptional importance rather than through review of or interference with routine matters.

Defining and measuring organizational climate can be an elusive exercise. If management recognizes that there is competition between companies at the level of creative innovation in all business functions, it will program for and properly manage change in order to stay on top. Organizations must create changes in their environment and not merely adapt to them under pressure.

The very first requirement in overcoming obstacles to successful management of change is a determination to grow. Given this determination, management will recognize the price that must be paid and will willingly commit funds for growth. If top management establishes a climate of growth and encourages lower-level managers to develop, innovate, and expand their thinking, the company will grow instead of being content with routine day-to-day administration and improvements in operating efficiency. To translate thinking into action requires planning and may require a full-time business planner. The organization must constantly reshape its objectives and work at building a favorable attitudinal climate for growth and change.

The organization attention to its external environment must be strong and systematic. Too often organizations devote a disproportionate amount of time to an analysis of what goes on inside the company. Organizational climate is not built entirely on internal factors, but is significantly affected by the external environment-competition, growth opportunities, distribution patterns, transportation costs, legislation, technological trends, changing customer requirements, socioeconomic changes. Paying close attention to these factors poises an organization for movement when the time becomes ripe. It stimulates internal climate improvement and pride in a forward-thinking company.

Once plans are devised to deal with major issues and major opportunities in the external environment they must be implemented. This may require pooling of talent and providing for necessary checks and balances. Information organization and flow must be developed. It may be necessary for tomorrow's business manager to completely restructure and reshape his organization to cope with modern society. This takes a great deal of courage and capacity. It takes superior people who must be developed over a period of years. Good organizational climate does not come about by accident; it is the result of good planning and careful implementation.