How an ideal organization is structured: an example through the movie 'Ocean's Eleven'.

The master plan: Ocean's Eleven, and the analysis of organizational structure behind it.

The jazzy tone of Elvis Presley's 'A little less conversation', with a plot that would be one of the least possible things that could happen in this real-life world, the movie 'Ocean's Eleven' had enough capacity to absorb me into it's fascinating scenes. The first time I saw this movie was in March 2002, in the movie theater of my home country with subtitles at the bottom of the screen in my own language. Even though it is consisted of fictional stories that would rarely happen, and moreover, a plot with criminal activities that is strongly discouraged, I believe that I can learn some of the senses of how a strongly cohesive team, or an organization, would work as a model. I mean, that is how we learn economy, with simplified models and limited conditions, just like the supply and demand curve at the 100-level econ course, right?

Before I say anything, I have to admit that this form of organization is purely IDEAL; if anyone would want to be in an organization, they would prefer this ideally formed organization. Due to the characteristics of a movie plot, which has the goal to attract people as much as possible, a group this cohesive and successful are rarely seen throughout our lives. That's why I like this movie.

First of all, we have to define what type of task is this group (it is a type of a small organization gathered up for a single goal, but for convenience, I will from now on name it as a 'group'.) undertaking. The organizational structure, according to Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal's text, 'Reframing Organizations', depends on the type of the task that the group is going through. Well, here is the bottom line: they want to rob a casino with state-of-the-art security system. No one has ever succeeded before, and it is highly risk taking. However, they do take the risk since the profit they achieve is proportional to the risk they are taking. So no mistakes are allowed, and they have only once chance to do it right; sounds much like a situation where an army is going into a mission.

We can divide this successful group of Daniel Ocean (starring George Clooney) into 2 phases: 
1. the gathering and the planning, and 2. the process of the plan. While Mr. Ocean and his close friend, Rusty Ryan (starring Brad Pitt) recruits the so-called 'experts' of each field, such as explosives, surveilance, acting, etc., those two plan everything for even the tiniest factor that would actually affect the job. One thing that should be noticed is that these con artists all worked together, and is familiar to each other. This makes everything so much more easier for them in the aspect of transition costs via coordination, which rarely happens in this world. After the recruitment, they become the center of the planning for each step, while consulting to each of the team members for the highest efficiency and the most accurate result. The one boss model from the B&D textbook seems most relevant to this type of group, although it has much more flexibility then the usual one-boss modeled organizations that we see around us. Also, the employees, or the other team members who are not in charge of planning the scheme follows the planned order without question. Of course, they were part of the planning itself, and that should have helped the members to follow the orders much more easily without doubts. 

After the planning and the practice of the plan is done, there seems to be a change in the structure within the group. It is not included in the fundamental team configuration models that are presented in the textbook. However, the book introduces us the concept of 'self-managing'. When the plan starts out, each member is assigned to play a certain role in order to achieve the big picture. While doing so, they manage themselves as much as possible so that they could not make any possible mistakes. Also, they take action to remedy problems, since the con scheme has no precedent, and is highly volatile in process. When unexpected situation happens in one's expertise, the member has enough skill to actually find a re-route for the plan to keep on proceeding. This is possible because of the plot that describes them as fully skilled and highly loyal to individual's goal, and thus the plan itself.




Idealistic team, and the team structure & top performance analysis by Katzenbach and Smith

Well, obviously, they succeeded in robbing the world's most hardest structure to rob: an underground casino vault with state-of-the-art defense system. Going through the analysis by K&S, I saw a lot of categories that match with these coordinated con-artists. The team members accept the offer, shaping the purpose in response to an opportunity. Even though it is highly lucrative, it is the type of offer that laypeople would not be easy to just accept with confidence due to its risks and kickbacks. Also, the common purpose of Daniel Ocean's 'I will take back what is mine' is transferred into specific, measurable performance goals. They are of manageable size, consisted of 11 members, and they are in the right mix of expertise. Actually in this aspect, I think there cannot be more perfect group or organizations for this certain type of job, thanks to the plot. Basically, every analysis fits in to this successful group, making me even wonder that the plot writers took a glimpse of this text book. 

To be honest, I would have never had the chance to even think about this movie in an aspect of viewing the organizational structure of this movie. The group of Daniel Ocean is remarkably efficient according to the textbook, and I guess that is what makes the story so fascinating. 

The temptation and the opportunism.

Sweet love, and the agony of pondering...

Who would disagree that loving someone who gets along with you well does not feel good? I would definitely enjoy, and even appreciate the relationship with someone who is a great match to me. 

It was around 3 years ago from now, when I broke up with my ex-girlfriend. We had good times together, but she had to graduate, and I had to finish my bachelor's degree. She went back to her home country, which departed us from each other. I was heart-broken, thinking about all sorts of things that came into my mind. It was truly despairing, and over the summer vacation, I hardly made the choice to focus on my studying, and 'studying' only. 

Ironically, then I met this girl (to be honest, I sometimes still think about her!) in a class I took in the Fall semester.  I just wanted to make some new friends in the new class, and I came across with this girl. She wasn't special; actually, she was really banal. We studied together in the beginning. While taking breaks during our study, we talked about things, which led to sharing common interests. It turned out that we shared a lot in common regarding what we like, and as a consequence, we became very close, as if we have known each other for a long time. 

Around the 3rd midterm period, we were staying together for most of the day together, and anyone would have believed that we were in a relationship. I actually liked her quite much, and even though she didn't tell me so, I felt that she had interest in me too. It was this situation where things get stuck, and doesn't have any progress 'relationship-wise'. 

But there was this 'small' problem. She was already in a relationship. It was a long distance relationship, and her relationship with her boy friend was not going too well. It's a long distance relationship, and I easily expected those problems, since I was a victim of this tragic incident before myself. 

I knew she would accept if I asked her to start a new relationship with me. She would hesitate, of course, but I just had this confidence based on the past 2.5 months that I have spent with her. And now, my side of the story begins. 

'What are you hesitating for? She's one of the girls that you will never find so easily. You know how hard it is to find a girl who fits you so well regarding interests!'

This is what I said to myself repetitively. It was right there. Right in front of me.

....to tell the result first, I told her my deepest pondering. Although I really liked her, as a girl, I simply couldn't ask her to be in a relationship with me just because of the fact that she was already in this 'already fading' relationship. I knew these types of opportunities don't come often during my life time. I can feel that with all my active senses. However, I had things that I believed in also. One of the few things I believe in, and trying to keep it for my life is to 'not prey on people's weakness for my own benefit.' I would rather be in this mental suffering than to take advantage of her situation, making her feel guilty. At least that's what I thought back then, as far as I remember.

Reasons of the pondering, and the dilemma: Being ethical, or being opportunistic!

I believe many have heard the term, 'Carpe Diem!'. Seize the day, I believe it is meant to express the importance of how you think about your situation. Enjoying your moment is truly important, but it can't be achieved without the mindset of embracing one's current situation.

Enjoying is one of the most primal basic desire that a human being has. No one wants suffering. Except those ascetics who train for the 'inner peace', most people would prefer the enjoyment. 

Now here is the dilemma: Why do I have to be so loyal to my beliefs? Why can't I just enjoy the situation, and take advantage of her situation for my own good?

To be honest, I still don't know the reason. How I think about it is that I am a person like that. 

What I think about the reasons to decline the 'opportunistic chance', instead of taking it and enjoying it, is related to the deeper part of the human mind, which we people call Ethics. Although it can be divided into numerous reasons, I believe most of the reason is included in this big category called ethics. For example, my reason to tell her that I can't be in a relationship with her because of my stupid personal belief is included in this big category called 'being ethical'. 

One of the reasons that the professor gave as an example, "good things come out to those who wait." can be interpreted as a concept of compensation for a better good (which is not even clear if one will get a better good or not). However, I think it also has this underlying concept of being 'good' by keeping the virtue of waiting patiently. Doing the things that what people think is right makes the process look much more charming than what it actually is, regardless of the consequence. One might even get part of the satisfaction by thinking 'I did the right thing. I am proud of myself.' even thought the result is not as good as expected.

To be honest, I regret about telling her everything so frankly. I still think about 'what if I didn't tell her what I truly think, and what if I actually got into a relationship with her?' However, if a same situation comes to me again, I believe I will just hesitate and ponder again, just like before, and come up with the same, stupid decision again.

Transaction costs, efficiency, and reaching the consensus.

Age of 17*, 1st generation of the school, and student council....

Before I say anything about the student council that I was associated with, I have to explain about the situation of my school back then. I and my friends were the 1st generation of the school, and we had no seniors above us. Also, the school type was 'Foreign Language High school'. This type of school exists in South Korea only (if there are other countries which has this school type, please comment). It is meant to be a school specializing in educating foreign language to the students, but because of the uniqueness of the type and since the government does not do very well on restricting the school agenda to focus on the foreign language, the school is mainly treated as a prep school for universities which prestigious students from all over the country. Normally, an ordinary high school would be able to accept students in the region it is placed in.

Back in 2007, I was a member of my high school's student council. Everything seemed so fresh. The fact that I was the first generation of the school which has brand new buildings made me quite happy compared to the getting enrolled in a ordinary school with seniors above me. I was eager not only to compete with all the prestigious peers in the school, but also to contribute to the newly formed school to make it into a better place. Luckily, I found some fellow students who had similar idea with me, and joined them to run for the school council.

I served as vice president back then, and the student body was consisted of total 9 members, including president, vice president, manager, clerk, accountant, and the leader of the 4 departments we divided. The school president election only covered the President and the Vice president. Manager, clerk, accountant were chosen by the President, and the head of the 4 departments were elected separately inside the department.

Our main role was to plan and organize school events, plan funding estimation for each departments, and communicate with the students and the teachers reciprocally. The special thing about the student council where I took part of was that I was the first generation of the students to be admitted into the school, and we were the first to create a body of council that served the school, as mentioned above. Although we tried laboriously, the beginning of the council was a total chaos; we lacked methods to communicate efficiently, and we were quite disorganized from each other.One of the main problem occurred during the distribution of the school fund to each departments. Everyone was brilliant in creating reasons for there department to get more funding, and we were perplexed to give which department how much fund. After little more than 3 months, most of the students who were participating eagerly in the department were divided into each faction, and didn't really even try to talk to each other.

The main cause to this problem was obviously lack of coordination with the other members in the council, since we were not really trying to work as a team at the beginning. Overcoming this gap was really arduous. Since we didn't really have the grasp of how to solve the problem 'professionally' (which here I mean as managing the coordination problem as an expert), all we could think of was to spend time more together as a team, and try to understand each other.

We managed to get it fixed by trying several things as time went by. We often went to our own workshops for strengthening our cooperation, and had more meetings not just for our works, but for our personal intimacies. Although we sacrificed a lot for the sake of cooperation, including our private times and putting our work back, we made a certain progress, not perfect though, in our cooperation. At the end of my duty as vice president, I personally felt that communication and cooperation were the key to a fluently working organization.

The perplexing theme: reaching the consensus

One of the transaction costs that I care about the most in an organization is definitely the cost to reach the 'consensus.' Organization is a group of people organized for an end or work. Although people are gathered and organized for the same interest, one cannot deny the importance of how people think so differently. Due to such differences among individuals, reaching the consensus, or the single goal of that organization, is painstaking but essential.

In my experience, the most wanted consensus in the beginning of the student council was to reach a reasonable conclusion that most of the people could agree to the distribution of the school fund. If the reasons to achieve the fund was not reasonable or of less importance, it would have been relevantly easy to make a decision where most of the people can at least understand. However, they all had their points in the statement, and even though the president tried to make a decision, there were always oppositions towards the final decision that was made. Since everyone moved toward their interest, everything got in everyone's way.

Thinking about it now, I guess this method of spending 'time' and building up 'understandings' worked in this situation because it was a particular situation called 'school council'. Although each departments were to gather up all the benefits they can get, we were tied up as 'a student in the school who gathered for mutual benefit for the school's well-being'. If it was a real-life politics, I am pretty sure these things wouldn't work at all.

The concept of 'whip', which was discussed inside the class, wasn't as efficient as it would normally had been. The manager of the council and I were doing the whip, but we were students before being a council member, and it was really hard to moderate the perplexing problems while doing our individual studying. I agreed strongly to the comment, "Whip has to invest a lot of personal time to moderate things between individuals or groups of different interests." Back then, the manager and I was too inexperienced and busy to efficiently moderate things.

The idiom 'Too many cooks spoil the broth.' comes into my mind as I reminisce of the young days as a moderator in the student council. Back then, I was too young and ignorant to such economic concepts. As of pondering it now with a better vision and wider knowledge, the transaction cost of consensus still looks perplexing and complex. Yet, it will be present in any organizations with prominent minds who wishes the well-being of the organization, and the solution will be the homework to many managers and moderators of the organizations.


*We Koreans begin our high school at the age of 17, and spend 3 years instead of 4. When I first entered high school, I was 17, just like all my peers.

Biography of Sir Christopher Pissarides.

Sir Christopher Antoniou Pissarides.

-> Born in Feb 20th, 1948 in the village of Agros, Greece, he is one of the leading minds in the field of labor market. He had the honor to be awarded for the Nobel prize in 2010 for his influential theory of search and matching theory of interactions between the labor market and the macro economy. 

    He received his B.A. in Economics in 1970 and M.A. in Economics in 1971 at the University of Essex. He then had his PhD in Economics in 1973 in the London School of Economics. He has been Regius Professor of Economics in London School of Economics ever since 1976.

    I never knew him before I got my alias. However, due to the chaotic unemployment problems soaring all over the world, he gives me a spark for the unemployment problems worldwide.

Citation/Sources:

Sir Christopher Pissarides Website
:http://christopherpissarides.com/

Wikipedia: Christopher A. Pissarides
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_A._Pissarides

Test Post

Test Post