According to Belasen and Alan, the internal process quadrant proposes that managers should pay particular attention to the laid down rules and regulations that govern their working environments. Decisions in such environments are arrived at in a very rigid manner thus allowing little room for creativity and innovativeness of subordinates. There are particular benefits to this system. Key among them is the predictability of the system and the ability to arrive at an objective decision. Management is able to make consistent decisions that bringing out an element of certainty in decision making.
The internal process quadrant also helps management to integrate acidities set goals to staff and also monitor performance in regard to the set goals. This also brings out objectivity in performance appraisal since the deliverables are clearly stated. While the internal process quadrant has been found to assist management in carrying out their functions, it has been criticized for its tendency to reinforce bureaucracy, reduce employee motivation and also to increase resistance to change (Quinn,Robert Et al).
I observed this trend, while working as secretary for a general manager office in Water ministry in Saudi Arabia. A customer would apply for water connection to their premises and go through a very rigorous but unnecessary process just to get the supply of the precious commodity. Due to the many procedures, a process that should ordinarily take a few days could drag on for almost a month, sometimes even longer. I was particularly quite disturbed when I was forced to turn down an application just because the customer account was in arrears yet it was the ministry’s delay in updating the customer’s statement that had occasioned the incident.
Being the good staff that I am, I of course explained to the customer that the reason that they were denied the service was because their statement was not up to date, thus reflecting a deficit position. While the customer was quite disappointed with the ministry’s services, I managed to convince him that his matter would be treated with urgency and also that the ministry was sorry for the inconvenience occasioned.
Managers, having learned of the shortcomings of this, have decided to strike a middle ground on the level of reliance to these set of rules and codified decisions and some level of discretion on the part of staff. This has efficiently ensured that while management is still in control, staff is allowed some level of autonomy in decision making up to a certain level beyond which management has the final say.
For instance, management may allow the finance manager to commission procurement of goods worth up to but not exceeding $20,000 beyond which a procurement committee has to sit and deliberate on the issue. This allows the finance manager some autonomy in his decisions while reserving the major decisions for procurements or acquisitions to a different set of individuals.
References
Belasen, Alan T. 2000. Leading the Learning Organization: Communication and Competencies for Managing Change. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Quinn, Robert E., et al. 2011. Becoming a Master Manager: A Competing Values Approach. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
