Friday, September 26, 2014

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. 

4 comments:

  1. Just an FYI about the movie, before getting into the rest of your post. It is a remake. The original was made when I was a kid.

    Let's just focus on this one line from your post:
    "Also, the employees, or the other team members who are not in charge of planning the scheme follows the planned order without question."

    As you mentioned, this heist is something like a military operation. There, the questioning of authority rarely happens, because the troops know doing so will put their own safety in jeopardy. (The exception is the object of a different movie, A Few Good Men.) At issue, then, is whether the questioning of authority is a good or bad thing in other circumstances.

    Further, since you've already divided the phases into a planning phase and an implementation of the plan phase, might it be that during planning it is good to look for other possibilities, in order to come up with the best possible plan? And during implementation, if some contingency occurs which wasn't anticipated in advance, there is a decision to be made about whether to stick to the plan or to improvise on the spot. Might it be that each has its merits and depending on the situation, on might be better than the other? If that's true, and if the person doing the improvising is not the author of the plan, then there is an element of questioning authority in that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your reply, professor Arvan. I didn't know there was an original version of this movie. Since I liked this movie so much, I will probably see the original version on this weekend!

    Questioning the authority is not really welcomed in this world to be general. From my observation and experience, and as you have mentioned in the class, people do not want their beliefs to be destroyed. Basically, questioning the authority does not mean that they are absolutely wrong, but is admitting they are not perfect, and have made mistakes regarding the topic that the authority is being questioned, whether the mistake is trivial or enormous. The authorities, whom are experienced in their particular field most of the times, would take it hard to accept the fact that the relatively younger experienced people would even dare to comment them on the subject that they have spent a big proportion of their life time in. The more rigid the organization, more harder the feeling of denial to the authorities will be.

    However, I believe that in some situations, questioning, not only to authorities, but to anyone, should be allowed at the level of the frame of the organization being maintained. Severe questioning would be threatening the dignity of the authorities, and thus lead to collapse of the organization due to lack of respect. But, the questioning on a proper level, such as suggesting a better re-route for a particular problem or suggesting a re-route for a gridlock, will actually benefit the organization as whole. For the first question, I can't really define that questioning of authority is a good or bad thing without the circumstance, but if necessary and in a proper manner, I believe that it helps to increase the spectrum in creativity and reframing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. About the planning phase, I am quite confident that it would be a good idea to look for other possibilities, in order to come up with the best possible plan. Actually, the movie applies this technique for the team, and I think it was very essential for them to do so. While Terry Benedict (starring Andy Garcia) blows up the hotel, he accidentally finds out there was a weak spot for the casino in the electrical system. The demolition expert Basher Tarr (starring Don Cheadle) was planning to use this pin-point in their heist, and has to change the plan since the casino reinforces the weakness. While changing the plan, he suggests that there is only one way to solve this problem, which is using a temporary device to interrupt the casino's electricity for a short time. In the case of the movie, if this was not done, they wouldn't have succeeded in getting the money out from the casino. Whether or not it is important in the movie, flexible organizations with more creativity tend to manage problems much better than those of stiff ones. Although the authority is an important thing to maintain the hierarchy and the frame of the organization, I certainly do not think it should be more worthy than the quality of the product or the service that it should provide. And if to search for other possibilities that would be better for the outcome and suggesting it, one should do a thorough research and present it to the authority and the others in a proper manner, as I have mentioned earlier above.

    I think the third question, which is commonly described with the word 'Ad-lib', is quite similar to the first and the second question, but has more to do with the type and the structure of the organization plus the task which organization is currently undertaking. Everyone acknowledges that people want stability while they live throughout their lives. However, people are always facing the uncertainty issues, thus having conflict in themselves when an unexpected situation arises during their task, etc. I would prefer to evaluate this question on the preference of an individual. I truly think that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to this question when one is making a choice, since the future is always uncertain, and these types of actions will be evaluated upon the result. What matters is how the decision maker's personality and preference is developed. If the person who makes the decision is risk-taking, and has self confidence, he or she will be more likely to make the 'Ad-Lib' action. Also, it is more likely that if the person detects faults from the original plan in a reasonable manner, he will take the risk to take a re-route. That person will carefully consider various aspects, from how the things will unroll upon taking an improvisation from the designated plan to how the responsibilities will be distributed after the improvisation. If the decision maker is introvert, the outcomes will be quite much opposite, considering other conditions hold. Also, if the task is of high importance, even the risk takers would not easily deter from the original plan, since the risk of blame would be much more heavy then those of the light ones. From this aspect of view, I believe that improvising and sticking to the plan each has its merits in different situations. The authority question will be discussed, only after the result is made, If the person who carries out the plan considers himself as having enough skills and experience for the improvisation, the authority of that decision would be more highly qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Additional comment: I just remembered that the book introduces five dimensions of the transaction. One of them which seems to be slightly related to the topic is the 'uncertainty and complexity' of the transaction. The main thing about this is that when the more abstract and wide-ranged subject is faced with agreement among the groups or individuals, it is hard to come to a specific agreement. Well, since my subject was on a movie, it was quite clear and straight-forward. The plans are brilliant, and the experts seems to agree on most of the subjects for the authority's decision. However, one solution to the unexpected contingency problem and the improvisation is to specify in a contract who has the right to make which decisions and within what limits, including the special cases that would arise unexpectedly. This might not be the case for a lot of the real life examples, since the company or the organization would not provide such a right to the laypeople, or the workers. But if the organization had some flexibility within it, I think this would be a possible solution to clarify the ambiguous atmosphere of who would take the risk and the responsibility under what authority.

    Hope you didn't read my post yet!!

    ReplyDelete