                  11.  SUPERVISION IN THE VIRTUAL CORPORATION.
        
             As vast amounts of information travel at the speed of light,
        success in organizations of any kind depends on the survival of
        the swiftest, the most adaptive supervisors-leaders.  Industrial
        age organizations and traditional management cannot always
        mobilize resources, supervisors, and employees quickly enough to
        meet the demands of the fleeting market.  
        
             One solution is the establishment of the "Virtual
        Corporation."  But what is a virtual corporation?  
        
             Virtual corporations (VC) are strategic business alliances
        that let firms instantly and dramatically expand their
        capabilities by pooling talent, expertise, and financial backing
        to complete a specific project.  According to Barnette (1993)
        "virtual corporations are blurring the traditional boundaries
        between companies, even creating situations where competitors
        work side-by-side as temporary partners.  They are not only
        revolutionizing the business world, but also forming the
        management model of the 21st Century."  
        
             Barnette (1993) cites a number of examples of how this takes
        place.  Borland Software and WordPerfect Corporation's co-created
        a bundled word processor, spreadsheet, database program.  Apple
        Computer joined forces in 1991 with the Sony Corp. to produce the
        line of PowerBook notebooks, marrying Apple's user-friendly
        software with Sony's manufacturing and miniaturization expertise. 
        Apple, IBM, and Motorola linked resources to develop an operating
        system and microprocessor for a new generation of computers.   
        
             When problems arise in the virtual corporation, the
        mobilization of "people power" will be simultaneously swift and
        unique.  Laurie Coots, senior vice president and director of
        business administration and development at a leading advertising
        agency in Los Angeles, said, "It's going to be about asking,
        'What needs to happen in this particular situation, who are the
        five best people on the face of the earth to make that happen,
        and how do we bring them together to do it?'" (Barnette, 1993, p.
        36).
        
             John Stygles, a business development and research specialist
        in Natick, Massachusetts, worked for several virtual corporations
        that resembled the old "Mission:Impossible" television show. 
        "When they had an assignment, they pulled together their best
        people to handle it.  When it was over, they all went back to
        their personal lives.  So too with us.  We pulled together to
        achieve a certain goal.  When it was accomplished, we all went
        back to our regular lives.  The structure of the virtual
        corporation is similar to that of a 'regular' corporation while
        the assignment is on.  Loyalty to the goal or objective is what
        binds us together, not necessarily loyalty to a company"
        (Barnette, 1993).
        
             Phillip Dyer, a project management professional in Atlanta,
        Georgia, founded Dyer Associates in 1990 as one employee outfit
        modeled along the lines of a virtual corporation.  "The
        'associates' part was to be a loosely connected network of pros
        who could offer more depth and breadth to clients than any one
        person.  Maybe that's just old-fashioned networking, but now it's
        becoming recognized as a more 'legitimate' way of doing business"
        (Barnette, 1993).  
        
             The major issue in a virtual corporation is trust.  People
        are often in a hurry to start with responsibilities and ownership
        issues.  In order to make the relationships work in a virtual
        corporation, trust must be established first and foremost.
        
             One of the concerns of VC members, since they do not work
        under one roof, rarely are in each others' presence except when
        an objective is being met, and lead regular lives away from the
        corporation, is who owns the property rights to information
        generated by the group?  This again involves trust, and until
        there is agreement on who, what, and how, problems can arise
        among the participants in the virtual corporation.  
             
             The VC concept is new and exciting.  Since there is no truly
        formal organizational structure, the question of who supervises
        whom arises.  Certainly, in such a loosely knit gathering of
        experts, this issue needs addressed.  Even after trust is
        established, there will need to be some semblance of leadership. 
        Given the previous discussion in this paper regarding the nature
        of supervision, the virtual corporation's supervision must assume
        a Y-Theory management protocol.  Each partner in the enterprise
        working on achieving the immediate objective for which the
        virtual corporation was formed needs to accept that the others in
        the corporation are working diligently on their particular part
        of the project.  Without this trust, without this acceptance of
        the Y-Theory, the virtual corporation is doomed to failure.  
        
             Computer information is becoming more powerful as new
        technology is being developed.  People are relying more and more
        on this type of information.  In the pre-computer days, an
        employee would have to use their creativity, imagination,
        education, etc. to solve a problem.  Now, it seems
        that computers are taking away much of that innovative thinking.
        
             Davidow and Malone (1991), in their seminal text, The
        Virtual Corporation, suggested that it is a meshing of the two
        (computer factor and human factor) that will make the VC
        successful.  
             
             Will employees become lazy in their thinking and not be as
        creative and innovative knowing or believing that information
        gathered through computers will solve their organizational
        decisions and problems?  I think not.  In fact, computers will
        only enhance the speed and productivity at which employees can
        complete the mundane tasks related to their jobs.  Even in the
        treatment setting, computers now are being used to assess
        client's needs, write comprehensive and monthly treatment plans,
        quarterly progress reports, aftercare plans, maintain
        sophisticated client information in databases, wed human
        resources and training information to compile a complete employee
        work record, and communicate via e-mail.
        
             There is no limit to the applications of computers in the VC
        and when the next round of CPU's get cheap and voice recognition
        gets more popular, the next quantum leap (no relation to the TV
        show) in human and computer interaction will take place. 
        Keyboards limit the number of people willing to get a computer
        and manipulate the information for themselves.  In our agency,
        those who can type are not afraid of interacting with the new
        technology.  Those who cannot use the keyboard may find that
        voice recognition will certainly make users out of avoiders.
        
             Imagine this for a moment.  The counselor enters the office
        and says, "good morning Casper, what do we need to accomplish
        today?"  The computer (Casper) responds, "the progress report on
        Fred Jones is due, and you have a treatment planning meeting at
        10 am.  You also need to finish the aftercare plan for Keith
        Hyatt.  It's also your wife's birthday on Friday so get her a
        present."   "Good", the human said. "give me the latest
        assessment summaries from the network."  The computer then begins
        a narrated version of the assessment summaries.  After listening
        to the summaries for a few moments, the human says, "print a copy
        of this summary for me."  The computer says, "printing."
        
             Is there some fear that computers will replace humans?  I
        believe quite the reverse is true.  Computers work for humans,
        not the other way around.  As computers do more and more of the
        hack work, we get freed up to do the innovative work.  Look at
        the businessman who gets to understand spreadsheets and the use
        of accounting software.  Suddenly he can explore the parameters
        of his business during the time he used to spend just adding up
        the numbers.  
        
             The problem is we are not moving up the level of human
        education and development at the same pace as we are gearing up
        the performance and capabilities of computers.  The VC is
        predicated upon the new technology and the computer is at the hub
        of this communication network.  It's not that humans will be less
        creative as a whole; it's that a divide is opening up between the
        advanced 'know how workers' (who will thrive in this future
        world) and the people who traditionally have relied on blue
        collar jobs (of which there will be less and less, and where
        there will be greater and greater volatility).  We need to put
        the effort now into human education and development that we used
        to put into fighting wars and building factories.
        
             And let's not sneer at being lazy.  Laziness has been
        responsible for more good inventions than anything I know.  Of
        course, not the kind of laziness that involves stupor but lying
        in bed creating things is not so lazy.  Many extremely creative
        people get the most work done while lazily meditating.  Napoleon
        and Einstein were two such individuals.
        
             Time and space are two parameters that are being shrunk
        significantly in the Information Age.  Davidow & Malone (1991)
        explored the value of time and how important it is when meeting a
        customer's need.  They discussed how the VC concept made Wal-Mart
        such a successful company and maintained that Walton operated in
        a virtual setting.  He put together his team of people focusing
        them on the areas in which they had expertise.  He felt that they
        would be successful and make him successful in the areas that
        they knew well.  His number one priority was meeting his
        customer's needs with enough inventory to satisfy customers but
        not be overstocked.  He had a real thing about timing - when to
        open a new store and where.  He felt the timing and place was
        extremely important for the success of that store.  Today,
        Wal-Mart is the leader in discount stores.
        
             In the years to come, incremental differences in an
        organization's ability to acquire, distribute, store, analyze,
        and invoke actions based on information will determine the
        winners and losers in the battle for customers regardless of what
        that organization is marketing, products or human services.
        
             The authors stated, "the success of a virtual corporation
        will depend on its ability to gather and integrate a massive flow
        of information throughout its organizational components and
        intelligently act upon that information" (p. 123).
        
             Information is the most valuable resource of the VC - even
        more than in a traditional corporation because it's really the
        only glue that binds the organization together.  The old
        information flow mechanisms (eg. conversations at the water
        cooler, over the cubicle wall, formal meetings, informal hallway
        rendezvous, the tone of voice, the facial expression...) will no
        longer apply, so a fragment of information (possibly THE pivotal
        fragment) could easily fall through the cracks if it's not
        captured, analyzed, stored and distributed optimally.  We carry a
        tremendous amount of information about people we know personally
        - not just appearance, but what they know, so we know who to go
        to for an answer.  What is the VC equivalent?  It's only the
        fragile web of what we can glean from messages and resumes.
        
             The real key is to weave the change into the fabric of the
        preexisting organization.  That's where VC's enter the picture IF
        the participants have the HUMAN skills of rapidly creating and
        recreating temporary organizations.
        
             The ultimate goal of the VC is to create quality while
        limiting cost.  Philip Crosby (1991), an early observer of VC,
        "estimated that the cost of poor quality could be as great as 20%
        and that, with processes that eliminate defects and wastes, most
        of that money could be saved."  Crosby came up with four
        commandments of product quality:
        
        1.   Definition - Quality is the performance to requirements
        
        2.   System - The prevention of defects
        
        3.   Performance standard - Zero defects
        
        4.   Measurements - The price of nonconformance to perfect
             quality"
        
             The following TEN commandments of Quality Improvement govern
        the VC:
        
        1.   Never stop improving. There is no such thing as perfect
             quality.
        
        2.   Quality is everybody's business, from janitor to board
             chair.
        
        3.   Keep your eyes, ears and nose open ... the best quality
             ideas are only as good as the ability of your senses to
             detect them.
        
        4.   Develop a detailed implementation plan.  Talking about
             quality is not quality.
        
        5.   Foster cooperation ... turf is the worst enemy of quality.
        
        6.   Dissect every job.  Discarding the unnecessary is as
             relevant to quality as is measuring the necessary.
        
        7.   Control ALL processes, not only production processes. The
             organization must know all the factors that impact quality
             lest it repair the wrong ones when things go badly.
        
        8.   Make extraordinary efforts when things go wrong. Your
             attitude and level of effort during difficult times are the
             ultimate measures of quality.
        
        9.   Think beyond improving profits.  The benefits of quality are
             too important to be reduced to mere fiscal measures.
        
        10.  Be patient. Do not look for the benefits of this quarter's
             quality improvements only in the next quarter (Davidow &
             Malone, 1991).
        
             I believe EVERYONE in a company is responsible for quality. 
        Not just quality of the product, but quality of customer support,
        etc.  Nothing frustrates me more than to be enjoying a new
        product (such as software) but need some additional information
        and get jerked around by the customer support people.  On the
        flip side, nothing turns me off as a buyer faster than to call a
        marketing department to get additional information on something 
        and getting jerked around there.  I forget the product no matter
        how good it sounds.  I'm also what Faith Popcorn has called an
        "attack consumer".  If I get jerked around too bad, I start
        chewing my way up the chain of command until I'm satisfied.
        
             So most corporate quality programs (there are shining
        exceptions) are doomed from the beginning by a power hierarchy
        which cannot face its own quality nakedness.  It is easier for an
        entrenched corporate management to allow an IBM to fail, than it
        is for them to admit their own culpability on the way to a
        recovery.  This is not only an issue of quality, but may possibly
        be a law of nature, like entropy, which can be called the Law of
        Evolutionary Thickets.  This means that the more an organization
        (or an organism) evolves by way of specialization, the more it
        becomes hemmed in by constraints which hamper both its ability to
        function AND its ability to change.  The cheetah is a rather
        beautiful and tragic example of this happening in nature.
        
             However, in organizational life there is no excuse since
        organizations are human endeavors and people are endowed with the
        analytical and cognitive skills which obligate them as managers
        to manage and escape from, rather than drift into and succumb to
        the thicket of impenetrable lethargy.
        
             TQM applied to the virtual corporation is listening to the
        customer and implementing the desires of the customer into the
        design, manufacture and distribution of the product or service.
        What makes it "virtual" is the way technology is used to collect
        and analyze the voice of the consumers.
        
             Davidow & Malone (1991) discussed the future relationship
        between producers and customers and how it will affect the
        virtual concept.  Here are some highlighted points:
        
        
        1.   The nature of new business relationships will result in
             stronger and more enduring ties based on mutual destiny
             shared by both suppliers and customers.
        
        2.   The VC may appear amorphous and in perpetual flux but will
             be nestled within a tight network of relationships.
        
        3.   Common future and mutual support will be highlights of the
             relationship between producers and customers
        
        4.   Customers will depend on producers having more invested in
             the relationship - they will share business secrets, train
             them to their needs, integrate them into their design
             process (p. 152).
        
             The question now is will this change of relationship
        happening now occur quickly enough for the organizations to more
        freely accept the concept of the VC and virtual teams?
        
             I believe Davidow & Malone are being very idealistic in
        their predictions.  I hope they are right.  The American business
        paradigm has been based on competition;  the above
        characteristics assume a more cooperative model.  That's a major
        shift in thinking for our economic environment (competition for
        capital) and our culture.  I believe the competitive model
        business in which we currently operate deters the formation of
        the VC, especially when dealing with individuals because our
        society tends to value the individual and measures him/her
        competitively in relation to his/her peers.  We learn that model
        from our very first days in school.  The problems associated with
        forming VCs, reflect difficulties over managing individuals and
        their unique needs for money, security, recognition, power, and
        self-actualization.
        
             Can services be seen as virtual items?  Does it get
        confusing when we begin talking about a virtual service? 
        Products are easy to define because they are tangible.  Services
        are not so.  It seems  that the service industry, like the
        alcohol and drug treatment field that I am in, may have a more
        difficult time adapting to the virtual concept and idea than the
        product industry.
        
             As the shift from the industrial age to the information age
        takes place, there will be a shift in the way capital and labor
        interact.  In the Post Capitalist Society, Drucker (1993) posits
        that we are making a transition from a capitalist economy, where
        capital and labor are the commodities of trade, to an economy
        where the application of knowledge and ideas are paramount. 
        Alvin Toffler (1992) makes a similar prediction in his book
        "Powershift."
        
             There is no question that rules governing
        supervisor/employee relationships are shifting rapidly in the
        face of human capital, which has spawned a new term... the
        "preferred employer."  More and more we have to manage people as
        if they're volunteers...another Drucker idea.
        
             Davidow & Malone (1991) stated, "in the virtual corporation,
        where almost every employee is to one degree or another a leader,
        the requirements for belief and trust are greater than ever
        before" (p. 183).
        
             The authors further suggested that not only does the
        relationship of line staff and middle managements' roles change
        with the organization in a VC, but also the CEO.  They stated the
        following characteristics that a CEO in a VC should have:
        
        1.   "The CEO must define the corporate vision and skillfully
             convey it to all employees at every level"
        
        2.   "The CEO must symbolize the company"
        
        3.   "The CEO must be the company's premier generalist"
        
        4.   "The CEO must trust the employees of his firm"
        
             It appears that CEO's will have to change a lot in their
        management style.  The CEO will need to become more involved in
        every aspect of their company, as well as, more involved with
        their employees.
        
             As organizations change their way of doing business to the
        virtual corporation concept, what happens to business management
        courses?  Will a whole new curriculum have to be developed to
        include this new way of thinking and doing business?  Davidow &
        Malone stated, "middle management's function has been to serve as
        an information channel through which top managers can view events
        and to relay orders down to the individuals doing the work. 
        These functions have become unnecessary because computer networks
        can carry much of the information about the status of operations
        more efficiently and effectively than can people" (p. 183).
             Eventually, I believe the whole concept of layered
        management, i.e. upper, middle, and then the "peons" will
        disappear.  In many ways it's a featherbedding-based system used
        to award cronies and good ol' boys rather than competence. 
        Business will get more like sports, where the individual either
        contributes to the team or he or she does not wear the uniform.
        
             Information conduit is only one of the roles that a
        supervisor plays.  If one accepts the notion that the majority of
        people perform to less than their capacity, then it makes sense
        that another role of a supervisor is to facilitate
        high-performance on the part of the subordinates.  Motivating
        individual employees will become the primary responsibility of
        supervisors.
        
             Middle management has made itself an endangered species
        because it has not adequately played the coach role.  It has
        failed to obtain high performance from those it supervises?  One
        of the major criticisms of middle managers under the traditional
        organizational structure is that they "manage upward" and spend
        most of their energies being corporate politicians rather than
        carrying out their duty to develop those they supervise.  This is
        a major waste of creative energy and needs to change if there is
        hope for the present industrial-style managed organizations to
        successfully evolve into an information-age system.
        
             There will always be "human factor" problems.  At the
        working level, supervisors and "lower" managers deal with people
        directly in groups of 7-20 or so depending on the complexities of
        the work place be it physical or virtual.  These team leaders
        facilitate brainstorming and coordinate the immediate problems of
        the work space like scheduling, resolving conflicts of
        personality, and performance issues.  But there are problems
        between work groups that need resolution and the task of
        generating information still requires humans.
        
               Granted, the computer can relay directives and report
        meeting results between senior management and work groups and
        workers and computers can do some pretty remarkable things with
        raw (reliable) data, but there is still the question of
        determining what data should be collected, which process to apply
        to distill it to an informative level, and how to insure its
        validity.  These tasks can be delegated to "middle managers."
        
               These challenges lend themselves to "ad-hoc" assignments
        of "specialists" or "expediters" who apply the human touch to
        those situations that need them and solve the one-time problems
        like how to distill collected data into usable information. 
        These "staff" functions required lots of people in the absence of
        mechanical information processors, but some of the tasks will
        never be replaced (automated).
        
             In the near future, organizations will become more effective
        by moving toward small groups of autonomous workers.  Large
        companies are fragmenting and there is less and less need for
        large sets of workers doing similar jobs.  The function of middle
        managers primarily carrying through the initiatives and policies
        laid down by senior executives is certainly doomed.  What is
        needed now is initiative and policy making 'on the hoof' by ALL
        managers - indeed in many companies, by all employees.  Read Tom
        Peters on 'empowerment'.  If middle managers do not behave like
        executives - make important decisions all the time - their role
        will eventually become obsolete.
        
             Management and supervision will change in the virtual
        corporation concept.  "The most fundamental transition will be
        the shift that management will have to make from directing action
        to ensuring the smooth functioning of processes.  A second change
        will occur in the very structure of management itself.  It will
        become less hierarchical and in the process much of middle
        management will vanish" (Davidow & Malone, 1991, p. 194).
        
             I agree with this statement.  There will be a difference in
        management today vs management in the virtual concept.  The mind
        set of managers will change.  Supervisors will need to be very
        flexible.  They will need to expand their thinking, do more
        brainstorming, and basically become more communicative.
        
             Nagler & Hibino (1992) suggested some unique approaches to
        solving problems, and generating ideas that may provide those
        organizations contemplating the transition to a VC to consider. 
        The main points described by the authors are:
        
        The Purposes Principle: Focusing on purposes helps strip away
        nonessential aspects to avoid working on the wrong problem.
        
        The Solution-After-Next Principle: Innovation can be stimulated
        and solutions made more effective by working backward from an
        ideal solution.
        
             The Systems Principle: Every problem is part of a larger
        system.  Understanding the elements and dimensions of a system
        matrix lets you determine in advance the complexities you must
        incorporate in the implementation of the solution.
        
             The Limited Information Principle: Knowing too much about a
        problem initially can prevent you from seeing some excellent
        alternative solutions.
        
             The People Design Principle:  The people who will carry out
        and use a solution must work together in developing the solution
        with Breakthrough Thinking.  The proposed solution should include
        only the minimal, critical details, so that the users of the
        solution can have some flexibility in applying it.
        
             The Betterment Timeline Principle: A sequence of
        purpose-directed solutions is a bridge to a better future.
        
             A philosophy professors once asked his students to think
        about the differences in efficiency between Democracy and
        Totalitarianism or Dictatorship.  His point was that our
        society's way of conducting government business is woefully
        inefficient compared to the ability of other systems to decide
        and take action.
        
             Yet over the long run, it is our society that has produced
        better results for itself both in terms of standard of living and
        educated people.  Why is it that in spite of our inefficiencies,
        or because of them, we have been successful?
        
             Our planned inefficiencies give us an opportunity to think,
        to hear and explore alternatives, to be open to ideas that are
        quantum levels better than our old ways.
        
             I believe the same is true with organizations.  The
        old-style hierarchical structure parallels totalitarianism. 
        Frankly, it can be awesomely efficient.  Eventually, it stifles
        creativity and lateral thinking (deBono, 1970).  But the
        new-style structure is a matrix.  Supervisors cannot rely on
        automatic obedience to implement their will, but must influence
        and discuss and be open to compromise and new ideas.  As with a
        free and open society, I believe that the price of a little
        inefficiency will be more than compensated by the great things
        that can be achieved by free and empowered work force.
        
             The main benefit of democracy is that it allows rich variety
        and the opportunity to make plenty of 'mistakes' (that's how we
        learn) and plenty of novelty (that's how we progress).  The rigid
        organization (nationally or in a company) stifles initiative and
        assumes that the "central office" is right.  But in a world of
        chaos, how can it be right more than (at best) 50% of the time?  
        
        
             I believe the most difficult issue for senior managers and
        supervisors will be learning to influence without having to
        control.  Most people think that this is impossible to do.  A
        great deal of time will be spent with trainers, facilitators, and
        counselors helping supervisors with this issue.
        
             The biggest issue for senior supervisors will be in making
        some key shifts:
        
        1.   From management to leadership;
        
        2.   From delegating to empowering;
        
        3.   From criticizing to coaching;
        
        4.   From making excuses to being accountable.
             
             In order for the VC to work, everyone in the virtual
        corporation must clearly understand, on a very personal level,
        what the vision of the organization is.  All the goal setting and
        objective discussion in the world does not substitute for people
        really internalizing the organization's vision.  
        
             When people get it - there is magic.  When they don't, there
        is confusion at best and destruction at worst.
        
             Some companies that have or are using work teams as internal
        VC components have produced some interesting results.  Here are a
        few examples:
        
        1.   So successful have teamwork programs been at the Defense
             System and Electronics Group at Texas Instruments that
             management announced the goal of having every employee in a
             self-directed work team by the end of 1992.
        
        2.   A Federal Express work team identified a billing problem
             that was costing the company $2.1 million per year.
        
        3.   Aetna Life & Casualty reduced the ratio of middle managers
             at its home office from 1:7 to 1:20 while still improving
             customer service.
        
        4.   Work teams at Johnsonville Foods in Wisconsin convinced
             their CEO to make a major plant expansion, and the result
             has been a 50% improvement in productivity."
        
             Johnston and Packer (1987) suggested that the baby boomers
        group will be the last group in our lifetime that will include
        the stereotype of the average American worker which is, "white
        and male".   They stated, "among the twenty-five million new
        workers in this decade, only 15% will fit this profile.  Forty
        two percent will be women, a group that historically has not
        migrated to technical careers; 20% will be native (nonimmigrant
        American) nonwhite men and women; and 22% will immigrants, many
        of whom will have to learn English" (p. 123). 
        
             As a marketing tactic, it is the ultimate "have it your way"
        campaign.  In our business we have won new customers by
        responding to their needs.  When the issue of how to treat "drug
        sellers" arose, our agency created a special "drug sellers"
        program that employed a relatively unknown concept called
        Criminal Personality Theory pioneered by Yochelson and Samenow
        (1970).  Responding to a probation request for an innovative
        program to treat juvenile delinquents who were not drug sellers
        or chemically abusive or dependent, a Youth Leadership Program
        was researched and approved for inception.  Combining the best of
        the military, boot camp model, education, and the Outward Bound
        Wilderness Experience, this program will serve a growing niche of
        delinquents in the juvenile justice system.  
        
             Strategic marketing will not be part of the virtual
        corporation.  In its place will become, "marketing of value". 
        More emphasis will be placed on the relationship to the customer
        - basically - keeping them happy.  Davidow and Malone (1991)
        suggested that reliability, creditability and trust are key
        factors in customer relationships.  They stated, "the task of the
        virtual corporation is to develop relationships with customers to
        enable them to obtain the maximum value from the product they
        have purchased" (p. 189).
        
             In order to evolve into a VC, organizations will need to
        transform their already established management and supervision
        practices into a continuing support system.  The management of
        these companies will need to change their way of thinking,
        managing, and training their leadership.  Change will not happen
        overnight, but I believe, if organizations are serious about
        developing into a virtual corporation, they will need to start
        now to change.  The information age arrived five years ago in
        1987. 
