|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
AES Honeycomb Case Questions
Question 1
AES adopted a loose organizational structure, keeping rules, staff and hierarchy to a minimum level. So pattern rules, relationship and procedures from the organization structure followed a “honeycomb” system model, which divided the company into families who could create self-sufficient communities which could police and organize their selves. ...
So the lack of direct control processes was a result from the above assumption and, supporting that, as the COO and CEO stated: “this system (honeycomb structure) - which encouraged shared responsibility, the reduction of hierarchy, and democratic control of work environment - would be the ultimate way compatible to support the values and beliefs that we were aspirating. ... ”
Since rank and title barely existed in AES the authority legitimacy would come from other sources such as expertise, charisma and social status on the family environment.
Question 2
The current problem arose from one main signaling and other less important that resulted on a strong decrease of the stock prices from AES. ... Thus, AES didn’t have this continuous process of learning and continuous improvement. ... Otherwise you will continually see the system sabotage your well-intentioned efforts”
So what happen was that the system was responding that one cannot take a model, specially a complex model such as the honeycomb organization structure and think it would work just the same way in every company branch, in addiction, without any direct control from specific areas. ...
Also, I think that both the CEO and the COO haven’t really given the real attention to the Shady Point Facility, because Bakke noticed before the incident had happened that the honeycomb culture was inadequacy developed there .
Approximate Word count = 1327
Approximate Pages = 5.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|