Organisational Structure
From GTwM
Organizational structure is the way in which the interrelated groups of an organization are constructed. From a managerial point of view the main concerns are ensuring effective communication and coordination.
Contents |
Organisational Lifecycle
Greiner argues growing organisations evolve in a series of phases.
Pre-bureaucratic or Entrepreneurial
Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This informal structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. They have a very flat hierarchy and most communication is done by one on one conversations. (see Hot Groups)
They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority.
Functional Structure
The organization is structured according to functional areas instead of product lines. The functional structure groups specialize in similar skills in separate units. This structure is best used when creating specific, uniform products. A functional structure is well suited to organizations which have a single or dominant core product because each subunit becomes extremely adept at performing its particular portion of the process. They are economically efficient, but lack flexibility. Communication between functional areas can be difficult.
Decentralised Structure
A Decentralised or Divisional structure is formed when an organization is split up into a number of self-contained business units, each of which operates as a profit center. Such a division may occur on the basis of product or market or a combination of the two with each unit tending to operate along functional or product lines, but with certain key function (e.g., finance, personnel, corporate planning) provided centrally, usually at company headquarters.
Matrix Structure
In this organizational structure each worker two bosses in two different hierarchies. One hierarchy is "functional" and assures that each type of expert in the organization is well-trained, and measured by a boss who is super-expert in the same field. The other direction is "executive" and tries to get projects completed using the experts. Projects might be organized by regions, customer types, or some other schema.
Post-Bureaucratic
A small group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization, (Heckscher and Donnellson, 1994 provide a detailed discussion) which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Heckscher has developed an ideal type Post-Bureaucratic Organization in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organisation 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. The problem with theories of this type is that it is very doubtful that such an organization exists. The exemplar case studies that show many of the required characteristics are all hi tech firms and very few in number. Furthermore, as is argued by Kunda (1992), the evidence points to new systems of managerial control building on what has gone before, rather than being a complete break with the past. Hence the move to the Post-Bureaucratic Organization may never take place.
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 and colleagues (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, Kathleen Eisenhardt Nicolaj Sigglekow, and Nelson Repenning revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.
Mintzenberg's Classification
Mintzenberg's longtitudinal study of how strategy is actually formed in a variety of organisations confirmed his earlier work which, although not rejecting Griener, added substantial complexity to the picture.
He argued that whilst most organisations began in the bottom left hand "Entrepreneurail" quadrant, many did not fit the Griener trajectory because this largely focussed on organisations which best matched Mintzenberg's "Machine Bureaucracy" type.
Mintzenberg's research then moves on to investigate how strategy is formed in each of these four configurations.
