An organizational structure consists of activities such as task allocation, coordination and supervision, which are directed towards the achievement of organizational aims. [1] It can also be considered as the viewing glass or perspective through which individuals see their organization and its environment. [2] An organization can be structured in many different ways, depending on their objectives. The structure of an organization will determine the modes in which it operates and performs. Pre-bureaucratic structures
Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development. They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber’s tripartite classification of authority. edit] Bureaucratic structures Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that “the fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine compare with the non-mechanical modes of production. Precision, speed, unambiguity, … strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration. ”[5] Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations.
They usually adopt a tall structure. Then tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns and Stalker[6] distinction between mechanistic and organic structures. It is not the entire thing about bureaucratic structure. It is very much complex and useful for hierarchical structures organization, mostly in tall organizations. [edit] Post-bureaucratic The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific [7]. In the generic sense he term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber’s ideal type bureaucracy. This may include total quality management, culture management and matrix management, amongst others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber’s rational, legal type, and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies [8], rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy.
Gideon Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at ‘Tech’ argued that ‘the essence of bureaucratic control – the formalisation, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations – does not change in principle….. it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization’s culture’. Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization. [8], provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic.
Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community organization.
It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who normally experience oppression in groups. Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et al. (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improviseal learning.
Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow[9], and Nelson Repenning [10] revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments. [edit] Functional structure Employees within the functional divisions of an organization tend to perform a specialized set of tasks, for instance the engineering department would be staffed only with software engineers. This leads to operational efficiencies within that group. However it could also lead to a lack of communication between the functional groups within an organization, making the organization slow and inflexible.
As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of standardized goods and services at large volume and low cost. Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure, which makes producing a limited amount of products or services efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiencies can further be realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low cost [11].
For instance, a small business could start making the components it requires for production of its products instead of procuring it from an external organization. But not only beneficial for organization but also for employees faiths. [edit] Divisional structure Also called a “product structure”, the divisional structure groups each organizational function into a division. Each division within a divisional structure contains all the necessary resources and functions within it. Divisions can be categorized from different points of view.
One might make distinctions on a geographical basis (a US division and an EU division, for example) or on product/service basis (different products for different customers: households or companies). In another example, an automobile company with a divisional structure might have one division for SUVs, another division for subcompact cars, and another division for sedans. Each division may have its own sales, engineering and marketing departments. [edit] Matrix structure The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product. This structure can combine the best of both separate structures.
A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms. An example would be a company that produces two products, “product a” and “product b”. Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the company as follows: “product a” sales department, “product a” customer service department, “product a” accounting, “product b” sales department, “product b” customer service department, “product b” accounting department.
Matrix structure is amongst the purest of organizational structures, a simple lattice emulating order and regularity demonstrated in nature. * Weak/Functional Matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain control over their resources and project areas. * Balanced/Functional Matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager and the functional managers. It brings the best aspects of functional and projectized organizations.
However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing power is delicate proposition. * Strong/Project Matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed. Among these matrixes, there is no best format; implementation success always depends on organization’s purpose and function. THE ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE he Organizational Climate Assessment is a powerful instrument, especially when provided organization-wide with specific departmental demographic separation and analysis.
Each category has been designed to assess one of the key categories, which affect employee performance. This assessment should be administered anonymously company wide, broken out by departments of 6 or more people to protect the identities of respondents. Every precaution should be taken to insure confidentiality in order that respondents will feel comfortable sharing their true opinions and perspectives. The objective of performing an employee climate assessment is to identify the key areas which are hindering production, reducing effectiveness and which might generate unexpected costs in the near future.
The idea and approach is for the organization not to simply perform an academic exercise, simply because they ‘do it at this time every year’, but to critically examine themselves to see where the company and it’s employees might be finely tuned to generate higher levels of performance. Once identified, opportunities to strengthen existing approaches, which are working well, as well as select appropriate interventions for addressing the weakest areas, should be aggressively pursued for the maximum benefit of everyone. This assessment is designed with the following assumptions in mind:
