MASTER OF MANAGEMENT (MoM)

JAN 2019 SEMESTER

BMOD5103

ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE

ASSIGNMENT 1

MATRICULATION NO : CGS01760402

IDENTITY CARD NO. : 941031-13-6053

TELEPHONE NO. : 016-8786303

E-MAIL : ANDYLAU94@OUM.EDU.MY

LEARNING CENTRE : SARAWAK LEARNING CENTRE

P a g e 1 | 18
Discuss the approaches, strengths and weaknesses of Galbraith’s star
model, Peters and Waterman’s model and McKinsey 7S Framework.

1. Galbraith’s Star Model

Jay Galbraith built up his "Star Model" structure for analyzing associations during the
1960s. The Star Model is the establishment on which an organization bases its structure
decisions. The structure comprises of a progression of plan strategies that are controllable by the
executives and can impact representative conduct. The policies are the instrument with which the
management must be proficient and qualified so as to shape the decisions and practices of their
associations successfully.

In the Star Model, design policies fall into five classes. The first is strategy, which
decides the path. The second is structure, which decides the area of basic leadership control.
Processes have to do with the stream of data; they are the methods for reacting to data
advancements. Rewards give inspiration and motivating forces to wanted behavior. Lastly, the
determination and advancement of the correct people — in arrangement with alternate
approaches — enable the association to work at most extreme effectiveness.

P a g e 2 | 18
The five variables must be reliable to empower effective conduct. Luckily, a plan succession
exists whose beginning stage is the strategy definition. Strategy drives authoritative structure.
Procedures depend on the association's Structure. Structure and Processes characterize the
execution of remuneration frameworks and individuals approaches.

When considering the interconnections in the Galbraith's Star Model of Organizational

Design, it ends up clear that in the event that you wish to roll out a critical improvement in an
association's exhibition, the majority of the five components must be inspected and conceivably
changed, in light of the fact that an adjustment in one component of the association has
suggestions for the rest. The test is to build up a way to deal with sorting out that considers each
of the five of the components and how they fit together to make an association with the strategy,
skills, and abilities it needs to succeed.

A vital rule of Galbraith's Star Model of Organizational Design has been that
authoritative viability is most prominent when there is a fit among the points of the star.
Specifically, the accentuation has been planning forms, remunerate frameworks, structures, and
individual frameworks that produce the capacities that are required for the fulfillment of the
strategy. Fit is vital as per the Star Model since it is required so as to deliver the sort of abilities
that accommodate upper hand. It happens when every one of the focuses on the star are adjusted
such that help one another and in blend, bolster a specific business system.

The Star Model demonstrates the switches that chiefs can control, and accordingly, can
influence worker conduct. By picking the ideal conduct, administrators can impact the
association's execution just as its way of life.

P a g e 3 | 18
Strengths of Galbraith’s Star Model

The Star Model focused on that authoritative structure is greater than the hierarchical
outline and the portion of the correct individuals to the correct positions. The model is an
illustrative instrument that anticipates neglecting imperative viewpoints amid the design
procedure. The design procedure, itself, is a hierarchical change process and should be overseen
thusly. Galbraith clarified that strategy drives hierarchical structure. In the event that the
business' future is dinky, an association must enhance its lower-level procedures, as opposed to
adjust its structure until the future progresses toward becoming clearer. Viewing associations as
processors of data and basic leadership to resolve and plan authoritative structures has
demonstrated valuable.

Weaknesses of Galbraith’s Star Model

The Galbraith’s Star Model depended on rationale and did not have an experimental
establishment. Galbraith's authoritative plan process accepted that the association is a 'clean
slate', a clear sheet of paper whose history is insignificant as contribution for the design
procedure. The model pursues Chandler's "Structure follows Strategy" theory. Strategy
characterized path and set standard for the determination of an authoritative structure. Galbraith
constrained strategy to the association's inward method of reasoning and did exclude an outer,
progressively financial investigation. While a geographic structure may best convey a picked
strategy, its greater expense structure could make the association uncompetitive in the market.

P a g e 4 | 18
2. McKinsey 7S Framework

McKinsey 7s model was created in 1980s by McKinsey experts Tom Peters, Robert
Waterman and Julien Philips with assistance from Richard Pascale and Anthony G. Athos. Since
the presentation, the model has been broadly utilized by scholastics and professionals and stays a
standout amongst the most well-known strategic planning tools. It tried to show an accentuation
on human resources (Soft S), instead of the customary large-scale manufacturing physical assets
of capital, framework and hardware, as a key to higher authoritative execution. The objective of
the model was to indicate how 7 components of the organization: Structure, Strategy, Skills,
Staff, Style, Systems, and Shared qualities, can be adjusted together to accomplish adequacy in
an organization. The key purpose of the model is that all the seven territories are interconnected
and an adjustment in one territory requires change in whatever remains of a firm for it to work
viably.

P a g e 5 | 18
The McKinsey 7S Framework is a model for the auxiliary investigation of a business that
disconnects seven components. The capacity to assess the viability of an association starts by
building up components basic to any association and after that estimating how adequately each
works and, unquestionably more essentially, how they work in participation with the various
components. This comprehensive way to deal with the executives association plans officials to
roll out critical improvements to a business successfully and proficiently, for instance, a merger
or securing; the relocation of organization central station or its offices; the venture into new
administrations or creations; the establishment of major new innovation frameworks; the venture
into new markets or into worldwide Internet administrations; scaling back; changing supervisory
crews; or progressed inward rebuilding. In the event that an association is simply drawn closer as
a structure that can be effectively adjusted, the multifaceted nature of that association, how it is
in actuality a grid of components that specifically sway one another, can be altogether bargained.

The model can be connected to numerous circumstances and is a profitable instrument when
hierarchical design is at inquiry. The most widely recognized employments of the system are:

 To encourage hierarchical change.

 To help execute new system.

 To distinguish how every territory may change in the future.

 To encourage the merger of associations.

P a g e 6 | 18
Strengths of McKinsey 7S Framework

The strengths of McKinsey 7S model is easy to apply as a diagnostic structure. Since it

consolidates both sound and hard components with enthusiastic and delicate components, the
investigation is sufficiently wide to incorporate the key attributes of an association. The model
can be utilized to asses the effect of strategic change on the customer association through cross-
examination. The qualities and shortcomings of an association can be distinguished by thinking
about the connections between every one of the Ss. No S is a quality or a shortcoming in itself,
however is a relative measure. Each factor's level of help for alternate Ss is significant. A S that
orchestrates with alternate Ss is viewed as a quality, and a discord a shortcoming. The model
conquered the restricted view as Peters considered magnificence to be a social issue where
uncertainty and mystery are required to tie individuals' requirement for congruity with their
craving to be viewed as people. He went significantly further by arguing that a solid dependence
on levelheaded basic leadership isn't just wrong, yet risky.

Weaknesses of McKinsey 7S Framework

The shortcomings of 7S model is the point at which it was utilized as a

structure to explore great organizations. The outcome was Peters and Waterman's
administration hit, 'In Search of Excellence' in which 62 brilliant organizations
demonstrated the accompanying basic characteristics which comprising of
predisposition for activity, near the client, self-governance and enterprise,
efficiency through individuals, hands-on, esteem driven initiative, adhere to the
sewing, straightforward structure, lean staff and concurrent tight-free properties.
The observational legitimacy of the model wound up suspicious when a significant
number of the organizations recognized as magnificent did not make due during the
1990s. The model can help manage authoritative change. Managers must follow up on
all Ss in parallel, and comprehend that the variables are interrelated. This
interconnectivity makes a dynamic framework where one change requires the
framework to adjust to another balance. The human cerebrum discovers it famously
hard to anticipate the impacts of changes in complex frameworks. The model has
restricted use as a continuous, numerical upkeep and checking instrument. The
P a g e 7 | 18
creators don't see the association as a political field. The creators saw that
contentions among people and divisions must be stayed away from by embracing
solid and joining shared qualities. Numerous associations are hunting down
greatness yet very few associations have possessed the capacity to accomplish this
objective, apparently on the grounds that administration does not have a significant
understanding what it truly intends to be superb. Since 1982, where Peters and
Waterman distributed their model, In Search of Excellence, there have been
numerous recommendations for a meaning of Excellence, and for the achievement
criteria behind magnificence. The beginning examination model or system utilized
by Peters and Waterman was McKinsey's7S Framework. The models included the
accompanying seven achievement criteria for magnificence that are partitioned into
equipment which comprise of Structure and Strategy, while for Software will
comprise of Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Staff and Style.

P a g e 8 | 18
3. Peters and Waterman’s Model
Today, numerous associations are "seeking" for Excellence however very few
associations have possessed the capacity to accomplish this objective, apparently on the grounds
that administration does not have a significant understanding what it truly intends to be amazing.
Since 1982, where Peters and Waterman distributed their celebrated book In Search of
Excellence - Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies, there have been numerous proposals
for a meaning of Excellence, and for the achievement criteria behind perfection. The beginning
examination model or structure utilized by Peters and Waterman was McKinsey 7S Framework.

The models contained the accompanying seven achievement criteria for brilliance:

Hard S Soft S

Strategy Style

Structure Staff

Systems Skills

Shared Values

P a g e 9 | 18
 Amid their examination, Peters and Waterman saw that administrators are accomplishing
more in the event that they focus with seven S's rather than only two (the hardware criteria), and
genuine change in expansive establishments is a component of how the executives comprehend
and handle the complexities of the 7-S Model. Peters and Waterman likewise helped the world to
remember proficient supervisors that delicate is hard implying that it is the product criteria of the
model which frequently are ignored, and which ought to have the most astounding spotlight
while setting out on the voyage to brilliance. We know today that huge numbers of the incredible
organizations recognized in the examinations by Peters and Waterman later on ended up
fruitless. This perception discloses to us what ought to be evident that any model and
additionally arrangements of properties have restrictions, since they are dependably
disentanglements of the real world in which the organizations are working. Consequently, the
perception additionally discloses to us that there is a need to dissect Peters and Waterman's
discoveries and to contrast and later greatness models which may have been structured because
of the issues and new information gained when organizations have attempted to embrace or
adjust early forms of magnificence models and additionally arrangements of brilliance
properties.

P a g e 10 | 18
 Peters and Waterman recognized the following eight properties which described the
great, imaginative organizations in their examination:

1. A bias for action, implying that in spite of the fact that organizations' way to deal with basic
leadership might be scientific, they underscore the significance of examinations. It is trusted
that too many point by point investigations might be hindrances against critical thinking.
Accordingly their ways to deal with take care of issues and difficulties are frequently test and
managed promptly or in a moderately brief time through foundation of cross practical groups
where likewise outer accomplices like clients or providers may take an interest.

2. Close to the customer, implying that the effective organizations truly tune in to the voice of
the client and furthermore utilize the voices as contribution for consistent upgrades and new
item and administration advancement.

3. Autonomy and entrepreneurship, implying that all representatives - not just individuals in
Research and Development - are relied upon to be inventive and creative in their day by day
employments.

4. Productivity through people, implying that individuals are relied upon to think of thoughts
for waste decreases and efficiency development by giving the correct structure for example
admiration, inclusion and strengthening.

5. Hands-on, value driven, implying that the organization's reasoning, vision and qualities are
viewed as the principle rule and to be unquestionably more imperative than innovative or
monetary assets for the every day exercises and difficulties.

6. Stick to the knitting, implying that the great organizations remain near the business they
know.

7. Simple form, lean staff, implying that the hidden auxiliary structures and frameworks in the
brilliant organizations are richly basic and best dimension staffs are lean.

8. Simultaneous loose-tight properties, implying that the phenomenal organizations are both
incorporated and decentralized. From one viewpoint for instance they have driven self-rule
down to the shop floor or item advancement groups, and then again, they are devotee
centralists around the few fundamental beliefs they hold dear.

P a g e 11 | 18
Discuss how you would evaluate whether an organisation is well
designed or inappropriately designed.

For most organizations, association configuration is neither a science nor an art; it's a
paradoxical expression. Authoritative structures infrequently result from efficient, deliberate
arranging. Or maybe, they advance after some time, in fits and begins, formed more by
governmental issues than by strategies. The random idea of the subsequent structures is a
wellspring of consistent disappointment to senior administrators. Vital activities slow down or go
off to some far away place since duties are divided or hazy. Turf wars torpedo coordinated effort
and learning sharing. Promising open doors kick the bucket for absence of administrative
consideration. Excessively intricate structures, for example, grid associations, breakdown as a
result of absence of lucidity about duties.

Most officials can detect when their associations are not functioning admirably, however
few skill to address the circumstance. A far reaching upgrade is simply excessively scary. For a
certain something, it's gigantically convoluted, including an unending stream of exchange offs
and factors. For another, it's troublesome, much of the time breaking down into identity clashes
and strategic maneuvers. So when association plan issues emerge, supervisors regularly center
around the most glaring blemishes and, all the while, make the general structure considerably
progressively clumsy and even less strategic.

A large number of the tests, and their basic standards, will sound well-known. Their
capacity stems not from their creativity, yet from their thoroughness and culmination. Together,
they furnish an organization's administration with an organized methodology for breaking down
all the key factors of authoritative achievement. Singular structure choices will even now be
troublesome, regularly requiring abstract decisions and hard exchange offs, however utilizing the
system will help make the discussion increasingly judicious, moving it far from issues of identity
and toward issues of technique and viability.

P a g e 12 | 18
The Market Advantage Test.

In figuring a system, an organization needs to put forth two major inquiries: Which
markets would it be advisable for us to contend in, and by what method will we gain leverage
over rivals in those business sectors? It might appear glaringly evident that these inquiries ought
to likewise drive the organization's association plan, however numerous structures end up
hindering business sector procedure as opposed to advancing it. Some disperse duties in manners
that occupy the supervisory group's consideration from target clients. Others make divisions
among units that make it troublesome for them to work in manners that give the organization a
focused edge. The punishments of such misalignments can be huge.

The first and most central trial of a plan, in this way, is whether it accommodates your
organization's market technique. You should start by characterizing your objective market
portions. The definitions will shift contingent upon which part of your association is being
assessed. On the off chance that GE, for instance, were structuring its by and large corporate
association, it would utilize expansive definitions, for example, "flying machine motors" or
"broadcasting." But in the event that it was taking a gander at the plan of its money related
administrations unit, it would utilize much smaller definitions, most likely consolidating specific
administration lines with specific geographic markets: "air ship renting," for example, or
"receivables financing." There ought to be no debate about the applicable market portions; if
there is, you have to do some new procedure thinking before you continue with the structure
exertion.

Next, decide if the plan guides enough consideration regarding each market section. Here
is the standard guideline: If a solitary unit is committed to a solitary portion, the section is
accepting adequate consideration. On the off chance that no unit has obligation regarding the
portion, the plan is lethally defective and should be patched up. Regularly, the investigation isn't
so clear; a unit may have duty regarding various fragments. An organization should assess such
circumstances cautiously, making decisions about whether the division of obligations will enable
adequate thoughtfulness regarding be centered around the fragment.

It's likewise vital to decide if the plan underpins your key wellsprings of preferred
standpoint and related working activities. Rundown these sources and activities and check how
the plan tends to them. Ideally, an organization would have a solitary unit, or division,

P a g e 13 | 18
committed to each source and activity. In all actuality, in any case, showcase preferences
frequently require coordination crosswise over units. For example, the wellspring of preferred
standpoint in one section might be predominant new-item advancement. To accomplish that
advantage, the specialty unit in charge of the portion may need to work together with a focal
research work. Or on the other hand, the favorable position might be an economy of scale in
assembling that requires composed creation over various specialty units.

Since coordinated effort crosswise over units is in every case harder to oversee than joint
effort inside units, any wellspring of favorable position that requires cross-fringe joins, especially
complex ones, ought to be a reason for concern. An organization should be certain that the plan
will empower the unit directors to give adequate consideration regarding keeping up the
connections. A few tradeoffs may remain; they'll be additionally examined by the great plan tests
beneath.

The Feasibility Test.

All organizations have requirements on their capacity to act. A few imperatives, for
example, laws, are external. Others, for example, data frameworks, are internal. Since they can
obstruct or even square certain authoritative changes, such requirements should be recognized
and surveyed from the get-go in any plan exertion.

Government directions are occasionally a predominant impact on hierarchical structure,

however they can block certain plan components. In a few nations, for example, it is difficult to
work together without setting up a different joint endeavor with a neighborhood accomplice.
Also, in the utilities business, controllers frequently demand keeping managed and nonregulated
business exercises in independent units. Organizations with global activities should be especially
perceptive of legitimate issues.

The interests of an organization's partners ought to be considered cautiously. Huge

investors frequently need to approve major hierarchical moves, and financial exchanges may
force rules, for example, confinements on minority speculators that have authoritative
ramifications. In a few organizations, different partners, for example, worker's organizations, will
request a voice in choices.

P a g e 14 | 18
An organization's data frameworks may keep certain hierarchical changes. A person may, for
instance, need to move from a nation based to an item-based structure, however in the event that
the person’s frameworks can't report execution by item, the person will either need to retool
them, at extensive expense, or look for another plan choice.

The Accountability Test.

In decentralized associations, responsibility for execution is critical. The reason for this
test is to guarantee that each unit has proper powers over its execution, controls that suit its
obligations, are conservative to actualize, and propel supervisors.

In surveying responsibility, focus especially around two basic wellsprings of issues. In

the first place, take a gander at any units with shared duties, particularly if their coordinated
effort is obligatory. An organization with both worldwide specialty units and national working
organizations, for instance, may require worldwide item heads to achieve agreement with
working organization officials on issues, for example, real ventures and benefit targets. Or then
again specialty units might be required to utilize the administrations given by corporate
information technology or human resource offices. At whatever point shared obligations are
forced by the corporate parent along these lines, it hoses responsibility. It turns out to be simple
for units to accuse execution issues for each other and troublesome for senior administrators to
figure out who's to blame.

Second, focus around any units whose execution is hard to quantify, either on the grounds
that there are no target results for correlation or in light of the cost of gathering execution
information. A corporate unit doing essential research is a run of the mill case of a unit for which
it's hard, if certainly feasible, to think of obvious, simple to-gather execution measures.

Where conceivable, cures ought to be set up for units with obscured duties or fluffy
measures. Clearer execution measures ought to be created, and more noteworthy clearness ought
to be accommodated covering duties. Regularly, in any case, full arrangements are impractical.
In such cases, parent managers will have no real option except to depend on subjective decisions
about performance. This generally makes the control procedure inadmissible except if the parent

P a g e 15 | 18
chiefs have a profound working information of the units they supervise. In the event that such
managers are inaccessible, the organization may need to adjust the design.

An Iterative Process

When an organization experienced every one of the tests, the organization will
presumably have made various minor, and maybe some significant, changes to your structure.
The organization will need to go through the tests again to guarantee that the progressions made
to breeze through one test haven't made the structure bomb any of the others. Suppose, for
instance, that an organization finds a troublesome connection between its specialty units and one
of its common corporate capacities. To fix the issue, it chooses that the capacity ought to be kept
running as a casual joint endeavor worked by all the specialty units. Yet, while revisiting the
tests, the organization understands that the specialty units share a solitary culture that is
altogether different from the one in the corporate capacity. Thus, the plan currently comes up
short the authority societies test. The organization needs to discover another approach to take
care of the troublesome connection issue.

P a g e 16 | 18
REFERENCES

Das, D. K. (1985). What can the police learn from “excellent companies”? Journal of Criminal
Justice, 13(4), 381-385. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(85)90008-X

Galbraith, J. R. (2014). ORGANIZATION DESIGN CHALLENGES RESULTING FROM BIG

DATA. Journal of Organization Design, 3(1), 2-13. doi:10.7146/jod.3.1.8856

Ghicajanu, M., Irimie, S., Marica, L., & Munteanu, R. (2015). Criteria for Excellence in
Business. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 445-452.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00388-3

Goold, M., & Campbell, A. (2002). Do You Have a Well-Designed Organization? Harvard
Business Review, 80(3), 117-124.

Grant, P. (2008). 'The productive ward round': a critical analysis of organisational change.
International Journal of Clinical Leadership, 16(4), 193-201.

Jankalová, M. (2013). Conceptions Based on Definition of Business Factors of Successfulness

for the Support of Reaching the Excellence of Enterprise Subjects. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 81, 531-535. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.472

Mateja, K. (2016). Triangulation of theories on the excellence of the McKinsey 7S business

model. Revija za Univerzalno Odličnost, Vol 5, Iss 4, Pp 360-373 (2016)(4), 360.

Obel, B., Beer, M., Burton, R., Carroll, T., Donaldson, L., Drumm, E., . . . Mirić, A. A. (2014).
JAY R. GALBRAITH MEMORIAL PROJECT. Journal of Organization Design, 3(2),
58-73. doi:10.7146/jod.17953

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence : lessons from America's best-
run companies: New York : Harper & Row, c1982.

1st ed.

Robert, F., & Josip, S. (2008). Modeling Organizational Design - Applying A Formalism Model
From Theoretical Physics. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences , Vol 32,
Iss 1 (2008)(1).

P a g e 17 | 18
Samygin-Cherkaoui, A., & Probert, C. (2015). McKinsey 7S Framework : Boost Business
Performance, Prepare for Change and Implement Effective Strategies. Namur, Belgium:
50Minutes.com.

Shani, A. B., & Noumair, D. A. (2017). Research in Organizational Change and Development
(Vol. First edition). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Singh, A. (2013). A Study of Role of McKinsey's 7S Framework in Achieving Organizational

Excellence. Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 39-50.

P a g e 18 | 18