Delegation and Interdependent

UNIT 16 DELEGATION AND Coordination

INTERDEPARTMENT
COORDINATION
Objectives
The objectives of this unit are to:
• clarify the process, problems and prerequisites of delegation
• distinguish between delegation, decentralisation and centralisation as they
relate to authority
• identify the problems of and approaches to interdepartmental coordination
Structure
16.1 Delegation of Authority
16.2 Elements of Delegation
16.3 Informal Delegation
16.4 The Problems in Delegation
16.5 Prerequisites of Effective Delegation
16.6 Centralizations and Decentralisation
16.7 Coordination
16.8 Warnings on Interdepartmental Conflict
16.9 Approaches to Coordination
16.10 Summary
16.11 Self-assessment Test
16.12 Key Words
16.13 Further Readings

16.1 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

The process by which authority passes from one managerial level to another is known
as delegation. As organisations grow in size and complexity, no one person can
perform all the tasks or exercise all the authority that is needed to accomplish goals.

Delegation of authority is not the same as division of work. As Henry Fayol says,
"Division of work permits reduction in the number of objects to which attention and
effort must be directed and has been recognised as the best means of making use of
individuals and of groups of people".

Delegation of authority denotes the superior vesting decision-making power in his

subordinate. No one can delegate an authority which he himself does not have.

Delegation is one of the most important skills a manager must possess. The
overworked managers are often those who do not know how to delegate. For they
lack the skill to get results through others. An individual can perform limited work in
a day, all by himself. But through delegation-through dividing his load and sharing
his responsibilities with others-he can accomplish much more. No manager and no
organisation can run smoothly and effectively without delegation.

16.2 ELEMENTS OF DELEGATION

The number of delegation marks the effectiveness of the manager and influences the 63
relationship between the superior and the subordinate.
Organisation Structure and
Delegation is the process where a manager divides the work assigned to him so as to
Processes get help from others in accomplishing the same. It involves the following four steps
that are indivisible:

• the determination of results expected

• the assignment of tasks
• the delegation of authority for accomplishing these tasks
• the exaction of responsibility for their accomplishment
Looked at differently, these four steps have three elements: responsibility, authority
and accountability. Delegation is the entrustment of responsibility and authority to
another and the creation of accountability for performance. Let us briefly consider
these three elements.
Responsibility: Responsibility refers to the activities which must be performed to carry
out the task assigned. Responsibility can be delegated.
Authority: Authority refers to the powers and rights entrusted to enable performance
of the task assigned or delegated. Certain authority is imperative to shoulder a given
responsibility. In organisations people derive authority mainly from two sources:
position and personal. Position authority is related to powers of decision-making,
reward and punishment. Personal authority refers to the expert knowledge and certain
qualities which are part of the personality of an individual manager. Position
authority can be delegated, but not personal authority. Authority could be formal or
informal. Here we refer to formal authority that is clear, structured and
communicated to all.
Accountability: Accountability is the obligation to carry out responsibility and
exercise authority as per established standards or norms. It is an obligation to account
for, and report upon, the discharge of responsibility or use of authority.
Accountability can not be delegated. The person who delegates continues to be
responsible to his superior for what he had delegated as well.
Since accountability cannot be delegated, the accountability of superiors for the acts
of their subordinates is absolute. By the same token, we see that the delegatee is
accountable to the delegator to the extent he is delegated responsibility and authority
For example, if the line managers are not given the responsibility to train the
operators, they cannot beheld accountable for the operators proficiency.
While accountability always moves upward, responsibility and authority move
downward in a hierarchy. A person can be accountable only to one superior for
delegated responsibility and authority. Accountability is easy to establish if the
standards and measures of performance are predetermined.
16.3 INFORMAL DELEGATION
So far we have discussed about formal delegation in the exercise of authority defined
by organisational role. Formal delegation is effective to the extent of the acceptance
and respect for formal authority.
Informal delegation occurs because people want to do something, not because they
are told to do. It cuts red tape. It is something that is not formally required to be done.
When there is problem in the exercise of formal authority, informal delegation may
become handy.
Bottom-up-delegation: Delegation takes place, in fact, not to the extent delegated, but
to the extent that the subordinate is willing to carry out the orders received. It may be
possible to enforce willingness to do the job itself, but not to comply with the
standards of performance established by supervisor. In large organisations, informal
group leaders, without formal authority, assume authority to restrict output and
workers accept such informal delegation. The people in the group will bring down
production to the level they consider fair rather than comply with the orders of their
superior.
64 Lateral Delegation: In modern organisations, few jobs are independent and teamwork
may result in members of a group entrusting, informally, their responsibility and
authority to others in the group at their level. The process of entrustment that Delegation and Interdependent
occurs when teamwork develops among members of a group is called lateral Coordination
delegation.

16.4 THE PROBLEMS IN DELEGATION

We shall examine here four key problems in delegation:
• What to delegate?
• How much to delegate?
• How far down to delegate?
• How to deal with employees resistance to accept delegation?
What to Delegate?
If a manager does not delegate, he will end up doing what his subordinates must be
doing. If he delegates what he should be doing himself, his leadership position would
be in jeopardy and there would be conflict among subordinates.
The first step in effective delegation is for the manager to analyse his job and to
determine, in principle, what he should or should not delegate. The following points
help in this regard:
No manager can effectively delegate responsibility and authority for initiating and
making final decisions on planning, organising, coordinating and controlling the
activities and positions that report to him. Such responsibilities and authorities should
be reserved for his own performance.
A large part of the work in every. management position consists of activities that are
routine and repetitive. These lend themselves readily to delegation. Once delegated
these form the main tasks that the subordinates perform.
How much to Delegate?
Usually the dilemma is how much authority to delegate than that of responsibility. A
salesman appointed to sell the products of the company should have the authority to
approach customers in the name of the company, offer them the products for sale at
certain price and assure growth and delivery.
Beyond this minimum authority, the supervisor should decide on other matters, if
any, that arise like whether the salesman can rent a car for commuting, whether the
salesman can hire people to assist him, whether the salesman can offer discounts or
credit. The authority of the salesman can on each of these probable issues needs to be
clarified preferably before he is asked to shoulder the responsibilities. While one
can have rules and procedures laid down for routine questions that arose in the past,
as and when new questions crop up prompt decisions need to be taken.
There is a popular misconception that "authority should always be delegated equal to
responsibility". But people with responsibility for coordination and control, usually
withhold a part of the authority and delegate only such authority as is
commensurate with responsibility.
How far down to Delegate?
To what levels in a hierarchy can responsibility and authority be delegated? People
who do the work should have the responsibility. Those with responsibility should
have commensurate authority. Taken together, it means that it is necessary to
delegate authority to all those who do the work at the operating levels.
How to deal with Employee Resistance?
Employee may resist accepting delegated authority for a variety of reasons:
• lack of proper job information
• lack of skills, training, supportive tools and equipment or self-confidence
• uncertain about the authority vis-a-vis responsibility
• lack of proper reward or sense of personal gain for the individual 65
• inertia and avoidance
Organisation Structure and
Managers have the formal authority to direct others, and can invoke reward and
Processes punishment systems to enforce this format authority. But to exercise informal
authority to delegate, they should earn the confidence and respect of their
subordinates.
To be sure it is imperative that managers check what their subordinates are capable of
doing and remove the aforementioned inhibiting factors.
16.5 PREREQUISITES FOR EFFECTIVE
DELEGATION
Delegation is an art, not a science. It depends on the personality, skills and attitudes
concerning two actors: delegator (one who delegates) and delegatee (one who was
delegated). The following are some of the essential prerequisites for effective
delegation.
a) Climate of openness, trust and confidence among employees at all levels and a
culture of team work and cooperation.
b) The two psychological hurdles in delegation, namely lack of faith in the
competence of subordinates and fear that the subordinates may outshine them
deter managers from delegating. The managers should not have any feeling of
insecurity that by delegating they would be making themselves redundant.
c) Goals should be established and made clear: Every person in an organisation
should know what his contribution to the organisation is. In accomplishing his
goals, he can formulate the objectives of delegation too so that delegation is done
with a purpose and becomes effective. The machine operator may not be happy
with running the machine. He would be happy to know how the outcome of his
effort contributes to organisational purpose.
d) People who carry out work should have clearly defined responsibility and
authority: Job descriptions or position guides should clearly state the objectives,
responsibilities, relationships and limits of authority of each position. Clear
definition of responsibility and authority at each position eliminates the scope for
confusion that duplication and overlap in entrustment of duties would cause.
e) Motivation is important because the manager who wants to delegate should be
able to motivate people to do what he wants done, willingly and enthusiastically.
As Louis Allen puts it, "Motivation is the moving force in delegation".
f) Make delegation complete: Delegation is supposed to reduce a manager's
workload. But, if not properly done, it may increase the workload. There are
often problems as to whether, at what stage and how often should the subordinate
check back with his boss. The problem can be resolved if (i) the assignment is
clear cut, (ii) subordinate is told how the assignment will be coordinated and
motivated by the boss, (iii) the boss specifies to the subordinate at what stage, in
what form and how often he should provide him with feedback on the progress
and (iv) the boss provides counselling and guidance. Once an assignment is
delegated the boss should intervene only to provide guidance but not withhold his
approval for specific actions involved in completing the task. To delegate
complete assignment or task requires certain sense of faith and self-control on the
part of boss in not intervening but giving counsel and advice. Likewise, the
subordinate should exercise discipline in making choice of a course of action in
carrying out the task. Delegating complete tasks relieves managers from detail
and provides opportunities to subordinates to learn to be independent and feel a
sense of fulfilment in work.
g) Train: Managers should help in preparing their subordinates to accept
delegation. Such' need is all the more felt in case of subordinates who show a
tendency to depend on the bosses than be independent. Managers should,
therefore, carefully identify the weaknesses; develop potential and attitudes
conducive to accepting and making a success of delegated authority. Training in
delegation should include appraisal of current performance, counselling for
improvement and coaching on the job.
h) Establishment controls: Even after delegation the manager continues to be
accountable. So there is need for him to control without limiting the effectiveness
of delegation. The more complete is the delegation the more comprehensive
66 should the system of control be.
Self-control is the best in establishing controls for delegation. The person to whom Delegation and Interdependent
responsibility and authority are delegated should participate in setting standards that Coordination
are to measure his performance so that he can understand and accept them. He
should also be able to measure and evaluate his own p e r f o r m a n c e if the control
systems are `auto' and `transparent'; thus it is easy to achieve control without limiting
the effectiveness of delegation.

Activity A

How Well Do You Delegate?

You can get a good idea of whether you are delegating as much as you should by
responding to the following items. Answer as accurately and frankly as possible.

How to Test Your Delegation

67
Organisation Structure and 16.6 CENTRALISATION AND DECENTRALISATION
Processes
Centralisation and decentralisation are extensions of delegation. Delegation refers
mainly to entrustment of responsibility and authority from one person to another.
Downward transfer of responsibility and authority at individual level is referred to as
delegation and when the same is done organisation-wide in a systematic way it is
known as decentralisation. Decentralisation refers to systematic delegation of
authority in an organisation. An organisation is considered centralised to the degree
that authority is not delegated, but concentrated at higher levels of management. In
juxtaposition, to the degree that authority is delegated, an organisation is considered
decentralised. As Henry Fayol puts it, "Everything that goes to increase the
importance of the subordinate's role is decentralisation, everything which goes to
reduce it is centralisation".
The terms centralisation and decentralisation are meaningful only in a relative sense.
No organisation can operate on a completely decentralised basis since all authority to
make decisions would rest at the lowest managerial levels and make it difficult to
achieve coordination. Similarly, except very small firms, no organisation can be
completely centralised. It is appropriate to recall the experience of two of the largest
automobile corporations in the U.S. The Ford Motor Company, at one time, was said
to have suffered due to centralisation while the General Motors suffered due to
decentralisation. This example bears out the impracticability of complete
centralisation or complete decentralisation.
Factors Influencing Centralisation
An organisation or a manager needs to have some reserve authority to integrate the
efforts in an organisation and achieve the desired degree of coordination and control
required to accomplish the specific goals.
Centralisation also facilitates personal leadership when the company is small, to
provide for integration and uniformity of action, and to handle emergencies.
Factors Influencing Decentralisation
Decentralisation becomes important and imperative when an organisation grows
bigger. The main purpose of decentralisation is to ease the burden of top executives.
The warning signals that point to a need for decentralisation can be had from the
problems in planning and control of operations, neglect of proactive strategies in
preference to routine fire-fighting operations, proliferation of personal staff around
top executives and mushrooming of committees. Decentralisation also facilitates
diversification and divisionalisation and is in fact a necessary accompaniment, if not
a prerequisite.
Decentralisation also encourages and motivates managers to better performance
because it affords them opportunities to take more important decisions, gives them
the flexibility and autonomy in their functioning.
How to Decentralise?
Clearly, as organisations grow, expand or diversify, the need for decentralisation
increases. The moot question then is, ‘How to decentralise’?
The first step in decentralisation, though it may sound paradoxical, is centralisation.
As in the case of delegation, here again, there is need for some reserve authority for
coordination and control at the nerve centre of the organisation, i.e., the corporate
headquarters. Planning, overall guidance and direction for each subunit or division or
department of the organisation need to be formulated, coordinated and controlled at
the headquarters.
If the organisational activities are somewhat homogeneous (say, confined to one
industry such as automobiles) it is relatively easy to develop sound policies and
control systems for all the decentralised work units or profit centres in the
organisation. But when the organisation is highly diversified and deals in a variety of
68 businesses such as engineering, textiles, tea and chemicals, it is difficult to develop
uniform policies and
control systems for all the work units or profit centres. Thus the design of the Delegation and Interdependent
administrative structure should take into account the needs of the organisation and of Coordination
its operating units as competitive units in their own markets.
Effective decentralisation requires a balance of the necessary centralisation of
planning, organisation, coordination and control, while decentralised units should
be developed as autonomous business units operating as individual profit centres,
with provision for effective coordination and communication. The central
management team should have a well-established system for measuring, recording,
and reporting operating results.
16.7 COORDINATION
Organising involves not only division of jobs into separate work units through
division of labour, decentralisation and delegation, but also relating the work units-
be they divisions or departments-to ensure that they pull together and work in
harmony. Linking or relating various parts and activities of an organisation to one
another is known as coordination. In the smallest of the smaller organisations where
all activities are performed by one or two persons in just one unit, there is little need
for coordination. But, as activities spread and organisations grow large and
complex the need for coordination becomes imperative and assumes greater
significance. Lack of coordination is a common complaint against most large
organisations. "The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing" is an oft
heard reaction among employees, customers and suppliers. Lack of coordination
results in break-down of operations, delays, wastages and frustrations.
One example of lack of coordination is the case of an organisation with different
divisions operating on the same site. One of the divisions was found to be
auctioning raw materials as scrap while another had been buying similar materials
from the market at a premium. In another case, while the factory had to cut down
production for want of storage space to stock finished goods at the plant, there was
shortage in the market for the same product.
Why is Coordination a Problem?
Any organisation will have certain objectives. People are grouped in an
organisation, usually, into separate departments such as production, finance,
marketing, personnel, etc. Each department is allocated different tasks. One deals
with production of goods and another deals with their distribution. One department
may plan, a second may develop new products and a third carries out actual
production. There are a number of service functions such as finance, maintenance,
materials, personnel, etc., each with a different task, though all are collectively
directed to accomplish the organisational goals. The process of internal
specialisation and task differentiation grows with the overall size of the
organisation. Over the years, modern organisations acquired centrifugal tendencies,
with individuals and departments straining to pursue different paths toward
functional autonomy. As a sequel, loyalty of managers today is generally more
toward their own specialisation or department than to the organisation. Within the
departments there may be a high degree of homogeneity and commitment to the
functional tasks but the more such homogeneity and commitment the greater the
problems in achieving integration between and among departments.
Such problems accumulate and aggravate in situations where allocation of different
objectives, targets and resources to departments caused perceptual difficulties and
misunderstanding. Sometimes the reactive approaches of top management may '
reinforce the centrifugal tendencies and quest for functional autonomy than promote
what is known in current management literature as "superordinate goals" that
promote and preserve awareness of an overriding organisational objective. For
example, in one organisation the Chairman of a company issued directives to plant
managements that they should stop overtime payments with immediate effect. Three
months later, when the Chairman noticed that overtime is still being paid in some
departments he issued another directive, this time to the finance department, not to
make overtime payments even if the time managers authorise such payments. This 69
new directive strained the relations between finance and production departments.
Organisation Structure and
When each of the several departments in an organisation have different objectives to
Processes follow, some of them at least may conflict with those of other departments in the day
to day operations. The vigorous pursuit of sectional objectives continues if reward
systems encourage such behaviour.

The conflict between sales and production in a British company with six sales
departments and 18 different plants was studied by A.J.M. Sykes and J. Bates. There
was constant conflict between the production side, which wanted to limit the range of
products in order to increase the volume of output for each one and reduce unit costs,
and the sales department, which sought to force production to comply with the
consumer's preferences regardless of the merits of standardisation. Among different
sales departments also there was conflict with each department competing for earliest
possible delivery date for its customers disregarding the system of priorities laid
down by the company. The company intended to give priority to export orders as also
to certain large and important customers. The sales clerks had been recruited from
production and they were able to organise preferential treatment for their `own'
customers through informal deals with the production staff.

To overcome the above problems, the company had set up a Sales Organisation
Liaison Department (SOLD) between sales and production, as shown in Fig. I.
SOLD's main functions were to secure information and production capacity and sales
requirements, to formulate a comprehensive price policy, and to maintain statistics,
producing reports for the Chairman and the Board. Detailed instructions were drawn
up for how SOLD was to operate. For instance,. orders to plants are to be allocated
based on Plant's capacity to meet delivery schedules as required by customers.
Establishing a new department for coordination and laying down new procedures
helped to achieve inter-departmental coordination.

Figure I: An Example of Coordination between Sales and Promotion Departments

The communication system before SOLD

Source: Sykes, AJM and Bates, J (1962), `Study of conflict between formal company policy
70 and the interests of informal groups'. Sociological Review, November, pp. 313-327.
 Delegation and Interdependent
16.8 WARNINGS ON INTERDEPARTMENTAL Coordination
CONFLICT
Common warning signs of interdepartmental conflict include the following:
a) Persistent conflict between departments: When the same matters of conflict
keep recurring between or among departments, conflict becomes embedded and
persistent. If this is not diagnosed and dealt early enough, the departments
involved start accepting it as normal and the outcomes arising out of such
conflict tend to he taken for granted.
b) Proliferation of committees: While committees are constituted in organisations
to bring about effective coordination on important issues affecting more than one
department, their proliferation may paradoxically reveal the basic weakness in
the organisation, viz., lack of coordination. Proliferation of coordination
committees fudge inter-departmental disputes and delay the resolution of inter-
departmental conflict.
c) Overloading of top management: One common tendency among departmental
heads is to expect the general manager or the chief executive to intervene in
matters requiring coordination between departments. If issues are not resolved
often enough by departmental heads among themselves, the top management will
be preoccupied more with such matters than deal with their main function of
policy, planning and relationships with important constituents outside the
organisation. Top management overload is another sign of inadequate
coordination.
d) The ritual of `red tape': Coordination can take place through use of formal
procedures. For example, the procedure may require that the two concerned
departments should consult each other on certain specified matters. But managers
may not follow this or take it seriously. When procedures are not followed or cut
short, problems may aggravate. The purpose of adhering to procedures is not to.
perpetuate the red tape as a ritual. Where procedures are redundant or
inappropriate, they need to be modified, than being ignored.
e) Empire-building: Once coordination is provided at a level higher than the
departments, the persons performing the role of coordinators may like to
perpetuate the institution of coordination and strengthen their role by consciously
endeavouring to avoid direct cooperation and coordination among departments.
Where coordination seeks to monopolise and block initiatives at departmental
level to achieve harmony in goals and actions at peer level, the writing on the
wall is clear.
f) Complaints from constituents: Lack of inter-departmental coordination leads to
unsatisfactory performance and affect the quality of service and relations
between the organisation and its constituents like the customers, suppliers,
Government etc. When different departments of an organisation provide
conflicting information, it affects the credibility of the organisation.
A simple exercise which can help to pinpoint the areas of difficulty is to request the
managers and members of the units to complete a form of the kind shown in Figure
II. This particular design was originally developed for use in an investigation of an
airlines, and Figure II gives an example of a completed form in which a respondent
has scored the relationships shown. In his perception, coordination between Flight
operations and In-Flight services is posing serious problems. The form, however, can
be adapted to suit any type of organisation. Analysis of the response helps to
understand where there are shared perceptions and where problems of coordination
exist and whether there is a large measure of agreement across the organisation on
the location of the problematic horizontal working relations. If respondents are also
asked to give examples of the performance problems/failings arising from the lack of
coordination, the data may provide a useful basis to work toward resolving problems
and achieving effective coordination.
Activity B
Adapt the format given in Figure II to suit your organisation. All that you have to do
is to replace the names of operating units in the Figure with those in your
organisation. Use the same pattern for scoring of relationships. Select the statement 71
which you feel is most descriptive of relations between each of the units, even if you
are not directly involved in them.
Organisation Structure and
Processes

72
 Delegation and Interdependent
16.9 APPROACHES TO COORDINATION Coordination

Interdepartmental cooperation and coordination are imperative for the success of any
organisation. Coordination is easy, if the degree of differentiation among different
departments is less. Successful companies evolve effective mechanisms and
procedures to strike a balance between the requisite degree of differentiation and
requisite degree of inter-dependence among departments/functions.

James D. Thompson classified internal interdependence of work units/functions into

three types: Pooled indirect interdependence, sequential (one-way) inter-dependence
and reciprocal (two-way) interdependence as shown in Fig, III.

Pooled Indirect Interdependence is a situation where the activities of different

departments or divisions are not directly dependent on each other. For example, as
shown in Fig III the advertising department is essentially independent from shipping
and receiving department. Yet, they are inter-dependent in the sense that each is part
of the same enterprise. Failure of either could threaten the entire company and thus
other departments. Each department makes a discrete contribution to the organisation
and is, in turn, supported by it. The degree of coordination required here is minimum.

In cases where the outputs from one department become the inputs for the other,
sequential (one-way) interdependence exists. This type of interdependence occurs in
process industries. The example shown in Panel B of Fig. III is that of a brewery.
Here greater degree of coordination is required in the sequence in which the process
occurs.
Figure III: Types of Internal Interdependence

Source: Bedeian, A.G. 1986, Management, Dryden Press : New York

Reciprocal (two-way) interdependence occurs when output from one becomes input
for the other and vice-versa. Such two-way interdependence occurs between
maintenance and operations units. The example shown here (Panel C of Fig. III) is
that of an airline. Here close coordination is needed because problems in either will
be ' quickly felt by the other.
James Thompson lists three main categories of integrative mechanisms to achieve
coordination:
a) Integration through. standardisation. This involves establishing rules or procedures
that channel the actions of each job, holder or department into a direction 73
consistent with the actions of others.
Organisation Structure and
b) Plans and schedules can be established to integrate the actions of separate units.
Processes Integration through planning is somewhat more flexible than standardisation in
that the plans can be modified quickly.
c) Integration can also occur through "mutual adjustment" This involves
transmission of information directly between people and the mutual adjustment
of their actions in the light of that information.
The traditional bureaucratic approach which is common to most of our organisations
relies heavily on coordination through standardisation and planning. Three
mechanisms are available for the purpose. Firstly, an elaborate system of rules and
procedures is worked out to deal with recurrent problems. Secondly, non-routine
problems are handled by referring up to the hierarchy. Where matters\of policy and
procedure require some deliberation, committee meetings are held. These committee
meetings are scheduled at regular intervals in stable conditions. They ate also held at
short notice, if the need arises.

The advantage of a bureaucratic system is that it operates smoothly and effectively in

normal and predictable conditions. But it is inadequate to meet the requirements of an
organisation in an ever changing turbulent environment. Often managers complain,
"If we had to go through the formal channels, we would never be able to get things
done on time". This could well be an exaggeration. Carefully structured bureaucratic
systems of formal coordination minimise the dependence on informal systems. There
is need for a balance rather than excessive reliance on formal or the informal system.

John Child lists the various forms of coordination through lateral relationships as
below in order of increasing sophistication, difficulty in design and overhead cost.
Usually managements adopt the more sophisticated mechanisms as additions to
rather than simply substitutes for those mentioned higher up the list:
a) Bring about direct contact between managers or employees who share a problem.
b) If departments are required to have a substantial amount of contact, one or more
of their staff will have special responsibility to liaise with their counterparts in
the other departments.
c) In case of special situations or problems where several departments need to
conflict until the matter is resolved, temporary task forces would be set up to deal
with it, with members from those departments.
d) If such inter-departmental problems recur, permanently constituted task forces or
committees provide the coordination.
e) If lateral relationships become a problem, a coordinating department such as the
SOLD discussed above may be created to perform the task of coordinating.
f) Another method of coordination is through creation of product managers in
multi-product organisations with overall, responsibility to coordinate operations
required to market, develop, produce and service a product.
g) The most elaborate method is to establish a matrix organisation. Here, an attempt
is made to combine integration of personnel within functionally specialised
departments with their integration around a common contribution to products.
Van de Ven et al discuss three principal modes of coordination :
• Impersonal mode, i.e., coordination through setting programmes and procedures
• Personal mode, i.e., coordination through feedback
• Group mode, i.e., committee, task force, meetings, etc.
The choice of the modes is dependent upon conditions of certainty, problems of inter-
dependence and size of work units (in terms of number employed). As uncertainty
increases, group mode becomes appropriate since coordination requires discussions
at lateral levels in a hierarchy. As inter-dependence increases, there is greater need
74 for personal and group modes. As the organisation grows large and complex, the
structure needs to be more formal with greater stress on impersonal mode.
Whatever be the approach, wherever the organisation chooses to vest a manager in Delegation and Interdependent
a coordination role, it should ensure that he is given proper authority. Only then can Coordination
the exercise influence meaningfully over departmental heads. There should be
clarity about the role, responsibilities, authority and accountability. The
coordinators should be non-controversial and acceptable to the departments or
groups they are called upon to coordinate. Coordinators should have the resources
and staff.

For effective inter-functional coordination and integration of departments with

different goals and criteria of performance, there is need for a climate of openness
and trust, the inter-personal relationships among employees, and the careful
cultivation of open confrontation for resolving conflict through a process of mutual
adjustment than aggression. Before inter-functional conflict reaches a point where it
affects organisational performance, organisations should initiate such organisation
development programmes as would promote teamwork and cooperation. The
people in the organisation need to realise that, "united we stand, divided we fall".
This can occur, not so much by zealously cultivating narrow loyalties to one's
function and specialisation, but by developing superordinate goals for the entire
organisation.

16.10 SUMMARY
We observed that delegation is one of the most important skills a manager must
possess. It has three elements: responsibility, authority and accountability. There is
need for balancing formal and informal delegation and the latter should reinforce
the former. The key problems in delegation include: what, how and how far to
delegate? It is important to deal with employee resistance to delegation through
counselling and guidance. We observed the distinction between delegation,
decentralisation and centralisation. We also noted the factors influencing
centralisation and decentralisation and the approach to decentralisation.

In the latter part of the unit, we have examined the problem of inter-functional
coordination, analysed the warning signs of conflict and studied the various
approaches to coordination.

16.11 SELF-ASSESSMENT TEST

1. Prepare a job description for your boss, yourself and your subordinate. See
what part of the job of your boss can be delegated to you and how much of your job
you can delegate to your subordinate. Also discuss the why and how of it.
2. What are the merits and prerequisites of delegation.
3. Give an example each to illustrate the following statements: Accountability is
indivisible. Delegation is not the same as decentralisation.
4. Discuss the importance of coordination. Give one example each (other than
those mentioned in the text) of the three types of internal inter-dependence among
work units.
5. What are the warning signs of lack of coordination? Give one example each.
6. Give four examples of different forms/modes of coordination.

16.12 KEY WORDS

Accountability: Obligation to account for, and report upon the discharge of
responsibility and/or use of authority.
Authority: Powers and rights entrusted to enable performance of task assigned.
Centralisation: Concentration of authority at higher levels of management.
Coordination: Linking or relating various parts and activities of an organisation to 75
one another.
Organisation Structure and
Delegation: Entrustment of responsibility and authority from one person to another.
Processes
Decentralisation: Systematic delegation of authority in an organisation-wide
context.

Profit Centre: A work unit (department or division) which is held accountable for
the profit it earns and the loss it sustains.

Responsibility: Activities which must be performed to carry out the task assigned.

16.13 FURTHER READINGS

A l l e n , L.A. 1958. Management and Organisation, McGraw-Hill: Auckland.

Bedeian, A.G. 1986. Management, Dryden Press: New York.

Child, J. 1984. Organisation : A Guide to Problems and Practice, Harper & Row:
London.

Pugh, D. 1979. Effective Coordination in Organisation, Advanced Management

Journal, Winter.

Sykes, A.J.M. and Bates J., 1962. Study of Conflict Between Formal Company
Policy and the Interest of Informal Groups, Sociological Review, November.

Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organisations in Action, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Van De Ven, A.H. et al. 1976. "Determinants of Coordination Modes within

Organisations", American Sociological Reviews, April.

Walker, A.H. and Lorsch, J.W. 1968. "Organisational Choice: Product vs.
Function. Harvard Business Review, November-December.

76