See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329905739

Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

Chapter · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 931

4 authors, including:

Emerald Jay D. Ilac Helen Amante

Ateneo de Manila University Ateneo de Manila University
12 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Emily Ann I. Lombos

Ateneo de Manila University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Emerald Jay D. Ilac on 25 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 *published in "Organization Development Practice in the Philippines" by E. Franco, M. Teng-Calleja and M.R.
Hechanova (2018, pp. 145-164), printed by the Ateneo de Manila University Press in Quezon City, Philippines

7
CHAPTER

Technostructural Interventions
in the Philippines
Emerald Jay D. Ilac, Ma. Ligaya M. Menguito,
Helen U. Amante, and Emily Ann I. Lombos

A recent study found that as many as 45 percent of activities that people are paid
to perform can be automated by adapting new technology (Manyika and Marimadi
2015). These activities can include a sales person’s standard demonstration of
the company’s products or even the regular cleaning of work areas. Interestingly,
the activities that can be automated are not limited to low-level roles. High-paid
occupations such as physicians and CEOs may soon find some of their work being
done by machines as well. Although some may lament that introducing technology
will mean fewer jobs, another perspective sees this as an opportunity to rethink
how jobs can be performed. As more time is freed from doing routine tasks, people
may have more time to hone specialized skills. However, as organizations harness
technology with the aim of improving their processes and increasing output, a
tremendous amount of organizational flexibility, learning and re-learning, and
redefining of jobs and processes are necessary. These organization development
initiatives are classified under technostructural interventions. This chapter aims to
describe the different forms of these interventions and showcase how they are used in
Philippine organizations.

What are Technostructural Interventions?

Technostructural interventions enhance organizational effectiveness through
improvements in technology (i.e., task methods and job design) and structure
(i.e. division of labor and hierarchy) (Cummings and Worley 2009). The goal of
technostructural interventions is to increase both productivity and efficiency, as well
as influence how workers think and feel about their work. Other technostructural
interventions include business process redesign, change management, competency-

147

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 147 9/4/2018 3:00:45 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

based management, knowledge management, organizational learning, as well as

changes in the space and physical settings (Kormanik and Randolph 2005). The
emphasis of technostructural interventions is both on productivity and efficiency, as
well as human fulfillment and appreciation. These interventions are rooted in the
disciplines of engineering, sociology, psychology, and in the applied fields of socio-
technical systems and organization design (Cummings and Worley 2009).
These technostructural interventions can be classified into three general
groupings based on the elements of an organization being targeted: 1) the
organizational structure, 2) employee involvement, and 3) work design. Interventions
under each classification can be further differentiated by the approaches used,
advantages and disadvantages, as well as ideal contingencies (Cummings and Worley
2009).

Organizational Structure Design

Interventions that target an organization’s structure focus on how work is divided
between different subunits in the organization and how these subunits coordinate to
complete the work. Structural design is the framework of an organization. It is often
illustrated as an organizational chart that shows the different subunits and how they
are connected to one another (Cummings and Worley 2009).
There are at least four factors that need to be taken into account when designing
an organization’s structure: the environment or the market where the organization
operates, organization size, technology used, and organization strategy (Cummings
and Worley 2009). A particular structural design is evaluated based on how well it
can address each of these factors. Traditionally, organizations have used a functional
structure, divisional structure, or matrix structure.
Functional Structure. The functional structure is the most widely used structural
design where subunits are divided by function and each functional unit is defined by
a set of specialized skills and knowledge (i.e., an organization having its Marketing
department, Finance department and HR department). Organizations adopting
this structure are usually small in size and offer a single product line. They tend to
have both long product development and life cycles, as well as an undifferentiated
market (Galbraith 2014). A good example are universities where the courses offered
are not changed in the short-term and where the administrative departments, such as
Accounting, Registrar, Health Services, etc., clearly identify the services it offers to
its student base.

148

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 148 9/4/2018 3:00:45 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

People working in an organization with a functional structure have more

opportunities to hone their expertise due to the singular nature of their work as well
as the functionally-homogenous group of people they work with (Galbraith 2014).
This design promotes skill specialization, career development in large specialized
departments, efficient use of resources, clear communication between superior
and subordinates, and knowledge sharing. However, it also promotes routine tasks
in a narrow, specialized field, conflict between functional units due to competition
and lack of communication and coordination, and unclear accountability. In part
due to this focus, organizations find it difficult when they expand into different
product lines since employees have to learn how to apply their functions to different
programs. A clear example can be a car manufacturing company that is known for
producing sedans. When adopting a functional structure, the company has the
requisite departments for this: Production, Sales, Accounting, Human Resource, and
Administrative Department. When it decides to venture into producing sports utility
vehicles and vans, which are then geared toward families and young professionals,
the employees can therefore become overwhelmed with the skill and knowledge
required to learn the new platforms and markets. The functional structure is best
suited for organizations in a stable environment, with routine technology and
interdependence within functions, and with goals of efficiency and technical quality
(ibid.).
Divisional Structure. In this design, the organization is divided into subunits
where each self-contained unit is in charge of one product. This enables a more
focused product development cycle since the structure allows for the allocation of
resources on an overall outcome, recognizes key interdependencies, promotes
diversification of skills and knowledge, and promotes departmental accountability
and cohesion. On the downside, departments can increase resource consumption
due to each one’s effort to develop its product. It may also limit career advancement
among specialists, restrict information sharing, contribute to employee stress from
multiple-role demands, and promote departmental rather than organizational
objectives (Kormanik and Randolph 2005). Universal Robina Corporations’s
divisional structure as shown below reflects its different business interests and how
it tries to compete in these varied industries. Each division is autonomous and has
clear targets and support mechanisms. The divisional structure is recommended
for large organizations in unstable and uncertain environments, with technological
interdependence across functions, and with goals for product specialization and
innovation (Galbraith 2014).

149

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 149 9/4/2018 3:00:45 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

Figure 1. Organizational Structure of Universal Robina Corporation

Matrix Structure. This structure takes a lateral divisional structure and combines
it with a vertical functional structure. It creates a dual chain of command with the
top manager heading and balancing the structure followed by the matrix bosses,
whether product, functional or area, and then the managers who report to two
different matrix bosses. This allows the availability of specialized, functional
knowledge to the entire project team, flexibility regarding the allocation of
people, and consistency between departments due to better communication, and
adaptability. However, this structure may also result in increased stress, anxiety,
and role ambiguity, as well as lowered performance if the structure is unbalanced.
Additionally, this structure may result in conflicts from inconsistent demands and
increased politicking. A matrix structure is best suited for organizations with a dual
focus on unique product demands and technical specialization and pressures for
information-processing capacity and shared resources (Galbraith 2014).
Beyond these traditional structures, new organization designs have emerged
namely: process, customer-centric, and network structures.
Process Structure. This newer form of structural design has multidisciplinary units
formed around core processes, emphasizing lateral rather than vertical relationships,
and places all functions needed to produce a product or service under one unit
headed by a process owner. The structure is process-driven, which simplifies and
enriches work processes. Adapting this structure has its own benefits: for one, it is
easier to measure and evaluate the processes when seen end-to-end (Galbraith 2014).
Since the team oversees the entire function, it can control external factors that can

150

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 150 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

affect how it is implemented. In addition, having the team reporting to one process
manager makes it easier for new adaptations, technology, or process revisions to
be implemented, as opposed to having several managers handling the different
functions. This structure is best suited for organizations in uncertain and changing
environments, of moderate to large size, with non-routine and highly interdependent
technologies, and with customer-oriented goals (ibid.). The process structure
proposes team-based work where the end-to-end processes are planned, executed
and monitored by the team members. It is this focus on processes that contemporary
management concepts such as Total Quality Management (TQM) bear heavily on
with its focus on customer satisfaction and continuous improvement through the use
of human resource know-how and quantitative tools. TQM as a philosophy aims to
develop a workplace environment that encourages people to learn, cooperate and
perform to their full potential (Kolarik 1995).
Customer Structure. An emergent structural design is the customer-centric
structure, where there are customer- or market-facing units focusing on the creation
of solutions and the satisfaction of key customers while being supported by other
units that develop new products, components, and manages the supply chain.
This structure seeks to provide customers with the best solutions possible with
customizable bundles of product. Thus, the market-facing units of this structure
are the core units of this type of organization. Organizations best suited to this
structural design are those in highly complex and uncertain environments, and with
goals of customer focus and solution orientation using highly uncertain technologies
(Galbraith 2014).
Network Structure. This allows a diverse group of subunits or of multiple
organizations to assemble into complex and dynamic relationships, each with a
specialized business function or task. Network structures have vertical disaggregation
or the breaking up of the business functions in an organization, brokers that
facilitate the building of networks, and coordinating mechanisms such as informal
relationships, contracts, and market mechanisms. Organizations best suited to this
are in highly complex and uncertain environments, with goals of organizational
specialization and innovation (Galbraith 2014).

Workplace Application: Organization Re-Design for Synergy

The Johnson & Johnson Experience
by Helen U. Amante

Coming from an environmental scan, the enterprise leaders of Johnson &

Johnson (J&J) in Southeast Asia crafted a new business model that will further
accelerate its growth in the industry. The new model proposes a singular integrated

151

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 151 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

synergy of its various businesses. This new structure is the organization leaders’
response to the observed lack of focus on emerging markets.
One major feature of the new business model is the centralization of the
organization design. What used to be a decentralized organization structure, which
had been divided according to the different businesses of the organization and
then divided further into different teams, was slowly streamlined into just one
management team. This team draws the business plans and strategic goals of the
various businesses of the organization.
The new business model entailed a major overhaul of the organization’s
structure, systems, and processes. J&J Vietnam was identified as the pilot site to
test the new model. Lessons from the pilot test were gathered and were recalibrated
according to context and culture in the various J&J sites across Southeast Asia.
In the Philippines, technostructural interventions included organization and job
redesign as well as process improvement. The merging of the various businesses
resulted in the merger of units. Reporting lines, roles, and functions were re-
designed. People were transferred to different departments and geographical
locations. Processes were streamlined following the mandate of centralization.
The implementation of the new business model in the Philippines took several
stages. Town hall meetings were regularly set to engage people regarding the need
for a new business model as well as the implementation of this new model. The
robust tools and processes that were already existing in the organization were
harnessed to serve the goal of people engagement and eventual buy-in of the new
business model, including its deep implications in terms of people and resource
allocation. Frequent communication was established as an exercise of transparency
in organizational directions and movements, especially its implication on the
personal lives of each organization member. Engagement included conversations
from the broad strokes to the minute details of the new model.
Key metrics were identified to monitor the achievement of the goals of the
new model. Some of the important indicators of success in implementing the
new business model included the ability to meet the financial commitments of
the organization, effective talent management where organization members are
prepared to take on their new roles, and knowledge as well as skills that are better
matched with one’s new function and roles.
Although the changes have yet to be completed, Johnson & Johnson has
reported initial successes from the implementation of its new business model. A
renewed organizational synergy is slowly strengthening its impact in the competitive
industry where it operates.
Source:
Salazar Ruiz G. and Sean Santua. 2015. Interview by Helen U. Amante. Personal
interview.

152

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 152 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

Redesigning the Organizational Structure

Organization Design. The structure of the organization sets the framework for
other organization design decisions and supports the strategy since this dictate what
activities are most necessary (Galbraith 2006). Organization design is an intervention
that deals with the organization’s architecture, or the extent to which structure, work
design, human resource practices, and management and information systems are in
alignment and support each other. A structure attempts to direct member behavior
to support strategic directions (Cummings and Worley 2009). The structure of
the organization sets the framework for other organization design decisions and
supports the strategy since this dictates what activities are most necessary (Galbraith
2006). The organization design process has three steps. First consists of clarifying
the design focus by examining the organization strategy, objectives, and capabilities
needed to achieve them. These become the criteria for making choices about the
configuration of design components. Then, the organization is assessed based on
the design criteria to uncover gaps in how it is currently functioning. The second
step is designing the organization. The senior executives are responsible for the
overall direction and the overarching structure. The design process addresses details
of the components, generating alternatives, and making specific design choices.
Other organization members often participate in the process, relying on their
own expertise, know-how, knowledge of best practices, or information generated
from visits to other organizations willing to share design experience. This results
in the overall design of the organization, detailed designs for components, and
preliminary plans on how they will all fit together and be implemented. The final
step is implementing the design. It involves putting into place structures, practices,
and systems. It draws from methods of leading and managing change and applies
them to the entire organization or subunit. It cannot be implemented in one step
but must proceed in phases that involve transition management. It entails new work
behaviors that need continuous organization learning (Cumming and Worley 2008).
An example is Manila Water’s transition from a centralized to decentralized territory
management structure. To fulfill its vision of becoming “a customer-driven, Filipino-
led, world-class water service company…,” it required changes in the organization
arrangement. It implemented a decentralization policy to serve its customer needs
in the areas where it operated, and then created smaller and more manageable
territories called “territory teams.” As a result, it was able to focus and respond faster
to customer problems and created a sense of accountability for the teams (Teng-
Calleja and Reyes 2008).
A Self-Designing Organization is an intervention wherein the organization is able
to alter itself. It is a highly participative process involving multiple stakeholders in
setting strategic directions and designing and implementing appropriate structures
and processes. The organization learns to design and implement its own strategic

153

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 153 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

changes (Cumming and Worley 2008). A self-designing organization has the built-in
capacity to transform itself continually to achieve high performance in competitive
and changing environments. Self-designing organizations consider self-design
adaptive strategies (Mohrman and Cummings 1989) that follow adaptive change.
Some characteristics of adaptive change include: 1) changing most features of the
organization and achieving a fit among them and with the organization’s strategy
(Beinhocker 2006), 2) occurring in situations experiencing rapid change and
uncertainty; it also consists of continually modifying to fit the change (Lawrence and
Dyer 1983), and 3) providing a general prescription for change. There is a need to
translate information to structures, processes, and behaviors suitable to the situation
(Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985; Lundberg 1989; Senge 1990), 4) affecting many
organization stakeholders (Weisbord 1987; Freeman 1984), and 5) occurring at
multiple levels of the organization (Miller and Friedsen 1984).
The self-design organization process has three stages that merge and interact.
These are laying the foundation, designing, implementing, and assessing. At the
first stage of laying the foundation, organization members become educated on
adaptive change. Three main activities happen: a) organization members learn about
organization function, principles for high performance, and self-design process;
b) leaders determine the corporate values that will guide the change process,
performance outcomes, and organizational conditions which will be needed to
implement the corporate strategy; and c) a team diagnoses the current organization
to determine what needs to be changed in order to enact the corporate strategy
and values. In the designing stage, organization design and innovations are created
to support the firm’s strategy and values. Broad guidelines of a new organization
are specified. Other organization features are left to be customized at different
levels of the organization. The design needs to be refined and modified as it is
implemented throughout the firm. The last stage, implementing and assessing, involves
implementing the designed organization changes. It includes an ongoing cycle of
action learning: changing structures and behaviors, assessing progress, and making
necessary modifications. Data on how well the implementation is progressing and
how well the new design is working are then gathered and used to clarify design,
implementation issues, and make adjustments (Cummings and Worley 2009). It
is a continuous learning process during implementation to assess and improve the
design and alter as needed by the changing conditions. An example is when 24/7
International created 24/7 Spicy Dev, a new business unit aimed to develop teams
of professionals with their own skills and specialization that could provide clients
with the best possible service. They wanted their employees to be self-selling,
self-recruiting, and constantly self-training for them and the company to be self-
sustaining. With an employee based on the client’s site, that employee can identify
other projects within the client’s organization and inform 24/7 International head

154

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 154 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

office. The office then forms a team to handle the project (Olpoc and Teng-Calleja
2012).
Downsizing is changing the structure of an organization to reduce its size either
by decreasing the number of employees or by reducing the number of organizational
units or managerial levels. It is a go-to option for organizations in a financial
bind because labor is expensive and reducing it can bring immediate relief to the
organization (Shook and Roth 2011). Downsizing also represents an opportunity
for an organization to rethink its strategies due to the choices it presents to the
company as it moves forward (Marlowe Jr, Hoffman, and Bordelon 1992). Other
known benefits of downsizing to an organization are decreased bureaucracy, faster
decision-making, smoother communication, increased productivity, and better
earnings (Applebaum. Bethune, and Tannenbaum 1999). Personnel downsizing may
also include voluntary resignation and early retirement (Sheaffer, Carmeli, Steiner-
Revivo, and Zionit 2009).
However, even with the promise of efficiency and financial relief, downsizing
may have negative effects. Too often, organizations undergoing downsizing are
focused on reviving the financial standing of the company and as such, completely
overlook the importance of providing psychological support to its employees.
Downsizing creates anxiety among employees who worry about their employment
status in the company, thereby decreasing their motivation and productivity.
Employees’ stress can lead them to commit errors that are costly to the company
(Shook and Roth 2011). In the same manner, departing employees bring with
them organizational knowledge that may prove useful for the company. This may
lead to gaps in informal learning channels and organizational memory, which can
cost the organization in terms of continuity of work flow and building employee
competencies.
Given the impact of downsizing, how then can organizations mitigate potential
negative consequences? One suggestion is to ensure clear communication lines
between the management and employees. Most downsizing efforts are usually
kept under wraps in the initial stages for fear that it can negatively affect employee
productivity. It is recommended that organizations share information and engage
employees by laying out the organization’s status and strategies, providing for the
needs of survivors and those who leave, and following through on growth plans
(Shook and Roth 2011). In addition, companies will also do well to acknowledge the
psychological transition that people go through during downsizing. Support should
be available for employees (whether these employees are leaving or staying behind)
to successfully transition from the change that this move entails (Bridges 1991) to
help the employees cope with the change.

155

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 155 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

Beyond the structure of an organization, other technostructural interventions

focus on how work is done. Examples of such redesigns that offer viable options
for organizations to undertake are organizational process review and process
reengineering.
Organizational Process Review is a step-by-step methodology, which identifies
dysfunctional aspects of work flow, procedures, structures, and systems, and then
realigns them to fit current business realities/goals. Afterwards, the organizational
process review develops plans to implement the new changes (Allen 2012). The
process focuses on improving both the technical and people side of the business;
in turn, this produces improvement across all facets of organizational life such as
customer service, profitability, operational costs, and efficiency. In such a process, the
OD practitioner asks questions that would delve into all aspects of the organization
as a complete whole: for instance, what is the salary? How is customer service
affected by the processes involved? What training would be required to improve
organizational operations? How is product efficiency affected by the different
systems? To answer these, methodologies such as focus group discussions, one-
on-one interviews, and even surveys can help in diagnosing the organizational
structure. Possible reasons for organizations to undertake this would be strategic
realignment, a review of the vision and mission statements of the organization,
and even assessment of both competition and the external environment. When the
organizational redesign of a company matches its strategic intentions, everyone will
be primed to execute and deliver them. The company’s structure, processes, and
people will all support the most important outcomes and channel the organization’s
efforts into achieving these (Aronowitz and De Smet n.d.). Thus, organizational
redesign is especially relevant in the current business climate, as it enables a firm
to create flexible business processes that meet the demands of today’s dynamic and
information-intensive global marketplace (Carter 2007).
Process redesign is one of many programs that can produce positive
organizational change. Other programs used by firms include employee involvement,
total quality management (TQM), lean manufacturing, six sigma, and business
process management (Ramirez, Melville, and Lawler 2010).
Process Reengineering entails radically redesigning how subunits work and how
they work together to achieve tighter cooperation and coordination of tasks. This
entails breaking specialized work units into more integrated cross-functional work
processes, making work processes faster, leaner, and more flexible to respond to rapid
market changes. Reengineering is implemented alongside information technology
systems to facilitate cross-functional business processes. Results are better when
key value-added business processes are chosen, when there are clear objectives set
at the beginning, and there is both involvement as well as commitment from top
management. There are, additionally, better results when there are clear milestones,

156

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 156 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

measures, as well as training for participants in process analysis and teamwork

(Cummings and Worley 2009).

Job or Work Design

Job design interventions focus on “creating jobs and work groups that generate
high levels of employee fulfillment and productivity” (Cummings and Worley
2009). This set of interventions can be viewed in one of three ways: the engineering
approach, the motivational approach, and the sociotechnical systems approach.
The engineering approach focuses on creating the simplest and most efficient
work design by clearly specifying tasks to be done, methods to be used, and work
flow among individuals. Under this approach, tasks are carefully studied to identify
procedures that produce maximum output with minimum input. This results in
highly specialized work designs that employees can learn quickly. In effect, there are
also short work cycles that altogether lower costs in training and wages. The work
can either be completed alone as in traditional jobs, or with the coordination of
people as in traditional work groups. An argument against this approach, however,
is that it tends to ignore the social and psychological needs of employees (Cummings
and Worley 2009).
The motivational approach views employees’ needs and satisfaction as key to an
effective organization and seek to improve employee performance and satisfaction
by enriching jobs. Hackman and Oldham’s model of job design (1976) suggests
organizational dimensions that can be improved to achieve better employee
performance. In the model, there are five core job dimensions: 1) skill variety; 2)
task identity; 3) task significance; 4) autonomy; and 5) feedback. There are better
outcomes for employees and the organization if the work includes many, if not all,
of the five core job dimensions. That is, the job is redesigned in such a way that it
requires many different skills to execute. It is, furthermore, perceived as a whole task
rather than just a small part. The job creates impact on the work of others, while
employees have independence and freedom in doing their work. Lastly, employees
receive feedback on the effectiveness of their work (Cummings and Worley 2009).
Lastly, sociotechnical systems are based on the premise that an organization
or work unit is a combination of a social section (people completing tasks and
interacting with each other) and a technical part (tools, technique, and methods
used to perform the tasks). This combination produces products and psychological
consequences. It also focuses on designing jobs that relate both parts through
joint optimization ((Cummings and Worley 2009). The sociotechnical system is
then embedded in an environment that provides resources and information. It also
prescribes ensuring that the interface between the system and the environment is
smooth (ibid.). It is a system that exists to serve an organizational purpose. Examples

157

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 157 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

of this is an admission and discharge system of hospital patients, or the human

resource information system (HRIS); these examples show how people can interact
and use a technical tool in performing an organizational task.

Employee Involvement
Engaging people in the organization can increase productivity, commitment, and
longevity in the organization. Employee involvement (EI), as it is formally called,
is commonly referred to as people empowerment. It seeks to increase members’
input into decisions that affect organization performance and employee well-being
(Cummings and Worley 2009). Operationally, EI comprises four interdependent
elements: power, information, knowledge and skills, and rewards. Power describes
the extent to which people can make decisions. It also describes how much authority
they can exercise over the parameters of their work such as work outcomes, work
processes, and people selection. Another element is information that describes
members’ access to important data for them to make sound decisions (ibid.).
Included in information are inputs on new trends and technologies affecting
people’s work, organizational strategic directions, and variables that enable the
achievement of organizational goals. Knowledge and skills includes the expertise of
organizational members that is necessary in completing one’s work and contributing
to organizational goal of coming up with improved products or services. Employee
development in the form of continuous training, mentoring, and coaching is
important to the development of knowledge and skills of the members of the
organization. The fourth element, rewards, can be internal, where the nature of
the work is a reward in itself. As such, this same nature allows a positive self-worth
among organizational members. Another kind of rewards is external, which refers to
other material incentives such as increase in pay and promotion.
There have been emerging interventions in this area of employee involvement.
These technostructural interventions allow organizations to engage their members
in decision-making, especially in coming up with new products and marketing
strategies that influence the bottom line.
Parallel structures, meanwhile involve members in resolving ill-defined, complex
problems. Moreover, itbuilds adaptability into bureaucratic organizations. Also
known as collateral structures, dualistic structures, or shadow structures, parallel
structures operate in conjunction with the formal organization. In this intervention,
organizations invest time and resources to allow development and expression of
creativity as well as innovation among its members outside and in parallel with the
existing structures. This is true especially with organizations that seek new ways of
dealing with organizational challenges. For example, members may attend periodic
off-site meetings to explore ways to improve quality in their work area or they
may be temporarily assigned to a special project or facility to devise new products

158

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 158 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

or solutions to organizational problems. Consequently, norms and procedures

for working in parallel structures are entirely different from those of the formal
organization (Arokiaraj n.d.).
High involvement organization (HIO) is an intervention that creates organizational
conditions that support high levels of employee participation. This kind of
intervention calls for a strong participation from employees to jointly design
structures with management that will allow them to participate actively and optimize
joint performance in meeting organizational goals. Whereas parallel structures
do not alter organizational structures, HIO harnesses employee participation in
transforming an organization’s structure. As shown in the cases mentioned above,
when Johnson & Johnson, Philippines decided to introduce a new business model
that centralized its various businesses, it involved its organizational members in
the process. To review, employee involvement was elicited in several stages from
town hall meetings to conversations that tackled the details of organizational
transformation. Implications of the organizational change on the personal lives of
employees were also surfaced and discussed with management. Likewise, structures
were redesigned to ensure understanding and buy-in of the new organizational
direction and obtain engagement of members in the achievement of organizational
goals.
Total Quality Management (TQM) is an intervention that is built around the goal
of ensuring quality standards for the organization’s product, process, and systems.
The concept of quality is a continuing activity where employee involvement plays
a significant role. This is so if part of the organizational goal is to embed the
continuing work for quality in the organizational culture. Likewise, the pursuit
of quality requires the development of knowledge and skills of the organization
members.
One organization that successfully applied this is Meralco, the electricity
distribution company. In 1990, the company embarked on a 10-year transformation
program based on the principles of reengineering and TQM (de la Llana 1998).
Its overall aims were to ensure power supply adequacy, increase market base, and
promote diversity, operational efficiency, and people development. In adapting TQM
(also referred to as “Total Quality” within Meralco), the management changed its
policies to adopt the TQM values of integrity, quality, productivity, team work, and
malasakit (concern for others). These behaviors were encouraged among employees
and were factored in their performance management system. Communication
lines were opened through monthly general assemblies, round table discussions,
and interviews. Management formed work improvement teams that, at one point,
comprised 31 percent of the target employee population. These teams were picked,
oriented, and trained for the assigned tasks. They were likewise given autonomy in
improving their functions and ownership of their processes. These conditions proved

159

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 159 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

helpful and were critical in successfully implementing successful work teams. Other
enablers were a set of shared values and vision, shared benefits, managerial faith in
employees, and an organization which supported risk-taking (Sexton 1994).

Common Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

In a study by the Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development
in 2015, organizations were surveyed to ask what technological and structural
interventions they used. Results show similarities with what is commonly used in
Western organizations. Below is the list of technological and structural interventions
among Philippine organizations.

Table 1. Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

(Ateneo CORD 2015 survey, n=101)
%
Reengineering/Process Improvement 71.29
Job Design 65.35
Organization Redesign 62.38
Quality Management 53.47
Work Environment Design 28.71
Downsizing 24.75
OTHERS:
Developing Learning Systems 0.99
Technical Trainer Training 0.99
Behavioral and Values Modification 0.99
Staffing Assessment & Planning Improvement 0.99
Quality Action Teams (Cross-Functional Process Improvement (CFPI)
0.99
Employee Engagement Development 0.99
Methods Engineering, Technology Assessment, Ergonomics, Safety, Gender
Balancing, Low Cost Automation, Work Study
0.99

As the results above show, Reengineering/Process Improvement was the

most commonly used intervention. This might be because such interventions
provide immediate solutions to organization issues related to processes. Therefore,
Reengineering/Process Improvement may be less costly, resulting in more control
and leeway since it resolves issues straightaway. This might mean changing the
design of the jobs of particular employees, or changing the structures for the
organization in toto. Analyzing and fixing job designs come in second, according to

160

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 160 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

the same results. Job design interventions allow changes to happen at the individual
employee level, but at the same time can cause issues when the changes affect other
organization members, structures, or processes. This is when organization redesign
happens, which is in the third place on the list. By looking at the organization as
a whole, redesigning and restructuring can focus on processes and systems that
have an impact on the company. This, however, can take more time, and may entail
more costs, especially when it comes to changes that may affect technology. Another
technostructural intervention used less frequently was downsizing, as this can hurt
the morale and psychology of the employees despite the financial solutions it may
offer. Eliminating employees from the organization would have a large impact
on their welfare despite its perceived contribution in improving organizational
profitability.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Discuss what technostructural interventions can be used in the following
organizational elements:
a. organizational structure
b. employee involvement
c. work design

Cite a Filipino organization as a sample case for each element and discuss the
appropriateness of each intervention to the given case.
2. Discuss organization re-design citing the case of Johnson & Johnson.
3. How can technostructural interventions create a holistic impact in Filipino
organizations? Cite an example.

REFERENCES
Allen, Roger. 2012. “What is Organizational Design?” The Center for Organizational
Design. http://www.centerod.com/2012/02/what-is-organizational-design/.
Appelbaum, Steven, Mary Bethune, and Rhonda Tannenbaum. 1999. “Downsizing
and the Emergence of Self‐Managed Teams.” Participation and Empowerment: An
International Journal 7, no. 5: 109–30.
Arokiaraj, Jayaseelan. Nd. “OD Interventions.” http://www.academia.edu/5820143/OD_
INTERVENTIONS_What_is_an_OD_Intervention.
Aronowitz, Steven and Aaron De Smet. Nd. “Getting Organizational Redesign Right.”
The McKinsey Group. http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/
our-insights/getting-organizational-redesign-right.

161

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 161 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

Argyris, Chris, Robert Putnam, and Diana Smith. 1985. Action Science. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Beinhocker, Eric. 2006. “The Adaptable Organization.” The McKinsey Quarterly 2: 77–
87.
Bridges, William. 1991. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. New York:
Perseus Books.
Calleja, Mendiola and Frederick Reyes. 2008. “Organizational Transformation: The
Manila Water Way.” In Leading Philippine Organizations in a Changing World
Research and Best Practices edited by Ma. Regina Hechanova and Edna Franco,
183–97. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Carter, Sandy. 2007. “The Role of Business Process Management in SOA.” DM Review
17, no. 5: 30–36.
Cummings, Thomas and Christopher Worley. 2009. Organization Development and
Change. 9th ed. Ohio: South Western Cengage Learning.
De la Llana, Leonisa. 1998. “Organization Transformation: The Meralco Experience.”
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 8, no. 1: 24–33.
“Divisions under URC.” 2017. Universal Robina. http://www2.urc.com.ph/urc_divisions.
Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management. Boston, Massachusetts: Ballinger.
Galbraith, Jay. 2006. “Matching Strategy and Structure.” In Organization Development,
edited by Joan Gallos, 545–65. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Galbraith, Jay. 2014. Designing Organizations: Strategy, Structure, and Process at the
Business Unit and Enterprise Levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. Richard and Greg Oldham. 1976. “Motivation through the Design of Work:
Test of a Theory.” Organisational Behavior and Human Performance 16: 250–79.
Hedberg, Bo, Paul Nystrom, and William Starbuck. 1976. “Camping on Seesaws:
Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization.” Administrative Science Quarterly
21: 41–65.
Kolarik, William. 1995. Creating Quality-Concepts, Systems, Strategies, and Tools.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill International.
Kormanik, Martin and Loretta Randolph. 2005. “From Challenge to Opportunity:
Incorporating a Positive Approach to Accelerate Constructive Change in a US
Government Regulatory Agency.” AI Practitioner.
Lawrence, Paul and Davis Dyer. 1983. Renewing American Industry. New York: Free
Press.
Lundberg, Craig. 1989. “On Organizational Learning: Implications and Opportunities for
Expanding Organizational Development.” In Research on Organizational Change

162

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 162 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Technostructural Interventions in the Philippines

and Development, edited by Richard Woodman and William Pasmore, vol. 3: 61–82.
Greenwich: JAI Press.
Marlowe Jr, Herbert, William Hoffman, and Steven Bordelon. 1992. “Applying
Organizational Development Processes: The Challenge of Downsizing—a Cognitive
Approach.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 7, no. 6: 22–32.
Miller, Danny and Peter Friesen. 1984. Organizations: A Quantum View. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Mohrman, Susan and Thomas Cummings. 1989. Self-Designing Organizations: Learning
How to Create High Performance. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Olpoc, Joselito and Mendiola Teng-Calleja. 2012. “Intrapreneurs, 24/7.” In Rebirth
and Reinvention Transforming Philippine Organizations edited by Ma. Regina
Hechanova and Edna Franco, 67–80. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.
Ramirez, Ronald, Nigel Melville, and Edward Lawler. 2010. “Information Technology
Infrastructure, Organizational Process Redesign, and Business Value: An Empirical
Analysis.” Decision Support Systems 49, no. 4: 417–29.
Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Sexton, Carol. 1994. “Self-Managed Work Teams: TQM Technology at the Employee
Level.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 7, no. 2: 45–52.
Sheaffer, Zachary, Abraham Carmeli, Michal Steiner-Revivo, and Shaul Zionit. 2009.
“Downsizing Strategies and Organizational Performance: A Longitudinal Study.”
Management Decision 47, no. 6: 950–74.
Shook, LaVerne and Gene Roth. 2011. “Downsizings, mergers, and acquisitions:
Perspectives of human resource development practitioners.” Journal of European
Industrial Training 35, no. 2: 135–53.
Weisbord, Marvin. 1987. Productive Workplaces. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

163

OD BOOK CHAPTER 7.indd 163 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

164

OD BOOK CHAPTER
View publication stats 7.indd 164 9/4/2018 3:00:46 PM