Departmental Dysfunction Essay Example

style="text-align: justify">Though Veres explains this as the type of comfort that may come with a high level of functioning in a department or a sense that a company has reached a goal number in their client base, so that taking on new clients is not needed, this can also be applied to any technology department that feels too comfortable with doing well. This paradox is that when employees are experiencing a boom in their departments and have developed a good grasp in their technological literacy, changing it (even for the better) is looked upon with distrust and as the old adage goes “if it’s not broken don’t fix it”.

Therefore, departments may not think there is a need for change or if change is implemented, employees may balk at the idea and believe they are “technoliterate” experts, who need no more technological training. Personal Accountability Literacy Just as employees and managers must stay abreast of the newest technological trends, dysfunction as a correlation again must be considered. As with the previous passage, it is obvious that a sense of comfort can cause conflict with learning and using new technology, obviously levels of discomfort with the products (technology) is as important as the process (interaction with employees).

Baker and Newport (2003) make implications that co-dependent behavior is the cause of negative, dysfunctional behaviors that begin with managers and are transferred to their charges. They contest that any research done on this subject not only be with technology, but also in the fields of psychology and sociology. Helping managers who come from dysfunctional backgrounds, however, presents a new and different problem for organizations. There is

no management development model for dealing with dysfunctional managers.

They cannot be “cured” through projects or seminars. Dysfunctional patterns result from early patterns, not lack of skills, knowledge, or ability (Hall, 1991). Recognizing then, that some managers and employees cannot be helped and no amount of technological training can change their psychological makeup, is essential. Just as an inefficient computer program would be discarded in favor of a more efficient one, dysfunctional department managers and other team members should be looked upon in the same manner. Technology and Cross Training

According to Nickol (2000) teams go through at least three if not four stages to become functional. The first is team awareness, the second involves learning team skills, the third involves learning technical and administrational skills, while the fourth is not mandatory and that is cross-training. It is important to note here, that Nickols puts learning team building skills ahead of learning technical skills and this is important to note, that if a department relies only on the technical skills of the employees and not the team skills, dysfunction is more likely.

Similarly, cross-training is an excellent buffer to technical dysfunction, as it allows more employees to be on the alert for issues that may arise from faulty software, hardware, and the inner workings of the team itself. Too much or too little specialization can be problematic, as Weber’s criticism of the bureaucracy points to the alienation that ensues from informality and distance, Nickols offers a more modern and comprehensive solution to this in team building and cross training. It is important, though, that there is not an overabundance of employees working

on the same technological issue, as this can cause conflict.

The key here is to have each employee be able to work in different areas, but to only use this knowledge to compliment the already designated person, not to compete with them or to otherwise hinder the process of working on a technical area. Surveys and Other Methods of Functionality Michael Slemmer (2008) demonstrates the effectiveness of using surveys to determine what technological issues are most prominent in his particular department, although his respondents were members of wealth management firms.

Just as cross training individuals and monitoring feedback within technological departments is important, so is implementing surveys and round-table discussions from other departments on technology issues both department-wide and company-wide. The magazine Personnel Today even provides a “rant” hotline in which people irritated with technological work issues can call confidentially to speak with someone about their difficulties. An e-mail address is also provided.

This type of anonymous support system for frustrated employees coupled with surveys and non-anonymous round tables are good ideas to help ameliorate the frustration that literature review has proven is synonymous with technology, since employees and those dealing with technology department sometimes feel lost in the matrix of information technology. Special Case Study Certain technology departments like those in the Department of Defense must, however, be more anonymous especially in technology issues that are labeled as classified.

This “for your eyes only” type of technology and work environment can pose additional issues, as the feedback loop and hierarchy of checks and balances will be more structured and potentially harder to mediate. In addition to this, the stress of

performing in “life or death” situations can be overwhelming with much oversight and even public scrutiny for failure. James O’Bryon (2007) has voiced concerned with the Department of Defense and the issues related to the lack of technical expertise with the DoD along with issues with interagency confusion.

There is, also, the interesting dynamic that is posed with contractors that must learn the technology and operate under different controls than DoD members. Again, however, a survey was put into place by O’Bryon to help alleviate the technological issues and results were examined to measure feasibility. This reiterates the former passage and the need for feedback and survey mechanisms, even in special cases, such as the Department of Defense. Technology Confusion and Conclusion

In conclusion, technology is constantly evolving as is the literature available in understanding the functions and dysfunctions of the technical along with the personal and interpersonal interactions of technology departments. Looking back to the earliest literature on these issues can help current technologists understand how far we have gone as an industrial, global society, but much work is needed to be done to catch up to current technology, which is constantly evolving and changing.

If people and departments could improve in the way that technology has, there would be no need for an analysis, such as this. The bottom line is, then, that more research needs to be done on how to improve technology when that technology is dependent on human factors and dysfunction teams, at times. Adding to the working models and bodies of literature available is good industry practice and implementing programs and processes that have a proven

track record is essential in avoiding dysfunctional and assuring the most functional technological teams possible.