Question One: How is the corporate culture of Gore different from other firms?
Gore’s corporate culture essentially differs from the other firms in terms of the managerial arrangement and structure. The privately owned company does not have the common corporate arrangement whereby the board of directors and the management exercise near absolute control of the organizational activities. Far from it, at Gore, the associates through functional teams make all the necessary decisions and the concept of teamwork is overboard. Indeed, Gore’s leaders do not struggle with strategy formulation and decision making. The corporate structure devolves all the strategic decision making to the associates. The leaders are appointment by their peers in the teams and no top to bottom command structure exists. This approach to management and strategy formulation differs widely from what is conventionally the practice. In the typical organizational structure, the top decision making organ, often called the board of directors, make the necessary decisions and delegate only the implementation to the employees. In addition, in such arrangements there are often clear hierarchical structures with the leadership at the top appointing the management and imposing the same on the employees. The employee contribution is merely auxiliary and does not necessarily have to be considered.
In terms of remuneration structuring and review, the Gore corporate strategy also gives the peer evaluation of performance and contribution much premium. In fact, the committees emanating from the associates themselves set the remuneration and continuously review the rates depending on the peer evaluation reports. This approach is a complete deviation from the commonly practiced approach whereby the firms’ management conducts performance evaluation of the employees and utilizes their own techniques to recommend the remuneration packages for the employees. In addition, the final say on the remuneration is always a prerogative of the board of directors which also sets the remuneration of the chief executive officer.
Lastly, the organizational structure is a flat lattice arrangement where the leaders are not for purposes of issuing commands. Rather, the organization is to facilitate representation where such is deemed necessary.
Question Two: How to Associates function at Gore?
As already mentioned, the organizational structure is a flat lattice arrangement whereby all employees are called associates and fall in the same level. The work structure is in groups and these groups are assembled depending on the project in relation to the competencies of the associates. The functioning of the associates, therefore, is dependent on the project. No particular associate is considered the overall manager. In fact, the leaders in the project are merely temporary and for purposes of representation. They play the essential part of reporting the progress of the projects to the chief executive officer. However, within the project team, all decisions are arrived at by consensus and every associate’s input is considered valuable. In addition, the communication channel is flat meaning every associate may communicate with each other. This eliminates the issues of distortion.
Further, the associates review and evaluate their own performance based on the peer review method. This is the 360% method whereby all the parties that interacted with the associate are asked about their opinion on the contribution of the associate. The committees then review the collected information and use the same to set the remuneration. The associates equally retain the decision making authority and have the power to appoint their own leadership. This makes them own the process as they feel like the real decision making hence increasing their determination to excel in their work.
Lastly, another observable fact is that all the associates in a given plant have to personally know one another. This is intended to improve the understanding of one another. In order to achieve this, the maximum number of associates in any plant is restricted at 250 employees. This way, personal contact and interaction is almost assured. This flat organizational structure empowers the associates and gives to them the necessary authority and decision making capacity that enable the pursuit of organizational and personal needs and objectives without the typical limitations that arise when employees are placed under management that work from the instructions of the board of directors. In essence, this approach ensures that associates exercise their competencies without unnecessary impediments.
Question Three: How is the compensation program at Gore related to the concept of pay-for-performance?
Before drawing the relationship, it is essential to have an appreciation of the concept of pay for performance. Under the latter, the employee is remunerated not based on the acquired experience, competencies and time in the organization. Rather, the basis of pay is on the consideration of the quality and quantity of the output. Whether the premise is quantitative or qualitative depends on the nature of the output. Therefore, the quality is assessed and the higher the quality, the higher the pay as it is assumed that the employee has performed. The compensation program at Gore mirrors this approach in a number of ways.
Foremost, premium is placed on the quality of work. The organizational structure is designed in a way that teams are formed based on the project competency requirements. The same teams are given the option of appointing their own leaders, setting their own targets and the resources thereof conferred to them. The expectation of performance is, therefore, inevitable. Secondly, the associates are then assessed by their own peers. It is the product of this assessment that informs the remuneration. In other words, an associate is compensated based on the evaluation of his performance by his own peers. This approach deviates slightly from the typical pay for performance approach but retains its core element. The deviation is seen in the fact that the performance appraisal is conducted by peers and summed up by committees constituted from the associates themselves. This can thus be said to be 100% peer review. However, in the typical setup, it is the management at the top level that appraises the compensation of the employees. However, the common thread in both approaches lies in the fact that it is one’s performance that informs the amount of pay that he or she earns. This approach is favorable to associates as it encourages hard work.
Question Four: Would like to work at Gore? Why or why not?
I would probably like working at Gore. This is for a number of reasons that I shall enumerate in the ensuring discussion. For starters, I appreciate the organizational structure that is devoid of top to bottom commands. This arrangement generally boosts the worker’s morale and equips the worker with the discretion, resources and authority necessary for achieving organizational and personal objectives. It is often dicey when the worker has to comply with commands from the top and work within the apparatuses afforded by the management. At Gore, the associates set their own apparatuses of work and make all decisions that inform the management of projects. The same associates are responsible for the output and would take the blame for the poor performance and similar take the credit for the successful performance. This arrangement does not have the escapist tendencies where workers and management engage in blame games during failed projects and at times the management takes the credit when the donkey work was performed by the employees.
Secondly, I would like working at Gore because of their impressive compensation package based on the peer reviews. This essentially means one can earn as much as possible if he works well despite the lack of experience or seniority level. This method equally assures a state of certainty in which the employees know what to do in order to earn more. In addition, it is 360% in nature hence eliminates cases of bias by management who may have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of some of the employees. By and large, the peer reviews enhances continuity and growth in the sense that different peer input is communicated to the employee who in turn sets out to improve especially in the areas of weaknesses.
Lastly, I would like working at Gore for the reason that work is organized in teams. This enables learning from one another and promoting collective and joint interests rather than obsession with individual success which has been proved to hinder the progress of the organization. It is incumbent upon the modern employee to elect to work in organizations that would afford them fair and equal opportunities of growth. Gore offers these critical opportunities.
References
Phillips, J., & Gully, S. (2011). Organizational Behavior: Tools for Success. New York: Cengage Learning.
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (2013, September 12). A Culture of Diversity. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/diversity/index.html
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (2013, November 12). About Gore. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/index.html
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (2013, November 21). Our Culture. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/aboutus/culture/index.html
Wagner, J., & Hollenbeck, J. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Securing Competitive Advantage. New York: Routledge.
