module4 mscmis organizacion organization organizational organizational_culture organizational_lifecycle philosophy print redise%C3%B1o_estructura_org research

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (June 2008)

An organizational structure is a mostly hierarchical concept of subordination of entities that collaborate and contribute to serve one common aim.

Organizations are a number of clustered entities. The structure of an organization is usually set up in one of a variety of styles, dependent on their objectives and ambience. The structure of an organization will determine the modes in which it shall operate and will perform.

Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different functions and processes to different entities. Ordinary description of such entities is as branch, site, department, work groups and single people. Contracting of individuals in an organizational structure normally is under timely limited work contracts or work orders or under timely unlimited employment contracts or program orders.

Contents 1 Operational organizations and Informal organizations 2 Success factors 3 History 3.1 Organizational Structure Types 3.1.1 Pre-bureaucratic structures 3.1.2 Bureaucratic structures 3.1.3 Post-Bureaucratic 3.1.4 Functional Structures 3.1.5 Matrix Structure 3.2 Organizational Circle: Moving back to flat 3.3 Team 3.4 Network 3.5 Boundaryless structure 3.5.1 Virtual 4 See Also 5 References

[edit] Operational organizations and Informal organizations

The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such divergence decreases performance, when growing. E.g. a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of resources and budgets. Organizational structures shall be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of effort and input to output.

An effective organizational structure shall facilitate working relationships between various entities in the organization and may improve the working efficiency within the organizational units. Organization shall retain a set order and control to enable monitoring the processes. Organization shall support command for coping with a mix of orders and a change of conditions while performing work. Organization shall allow for application of individual skills to enable high flexibility and apply creativity. When a business expands, the chain of command will lengthen and the spans of control will widen. When an organization comes to age, the flexibility will decrease and the creativity will fatigue. Therefore organizational structures shall be altered from time to time to enable recovery. If such alteration is prevented by internal or external forces, the final escape is to turn down the organization to prepare for a re-launch in an entirely new set up.

See Informal organization and Formal organization for more information.

[edit] Success factors

Common success criteria for organizational structures are:

• Decentralized reporting
• Flat hierarchy^{[citation needed]}
• High transient speed
• High transparency
• Low residual mass
• Permanent monitoring
• Rapid response
• Shared reliability
• Matrix hierarchy

etc.

[edit] History

Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial structures.

[edit] Organizational Structure Types

[edit] 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

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^[1] distinction between mechanistic and organic structures.

[edit] Post-Bureaucratic

The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific ^[2]. In the generic sense the 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 the Matrix Organization 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 organisation is still rule bound. Heckshcer, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies ^[3], 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. ^[4], provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type 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 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 and Sigglekow^[5], and Nelson Repenning ^[6] revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.

[edit] Functional Structures

The functional structure groups employees together based upon the functions of specific jobs within the organization. For example, a division of an internet service provider (ISP) with a functional organizational structure might be as follows:

Vice President

• Sales Department (sales function)
• Customer Service
• Accounting Department (accounting function)
• Administration Department (administration function)

[edit] Matrix Structure

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 the most complex of the different organizational structures.

• 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 organisation's purpose and function.

[edit] Organizational Circle: Moving back to flat

The flat structure is common in enterprenerial start-ups, university spin offs or small companies in general. As the company grow, however, it becomes more complex and hierarchical, which leads to an expanded structure, with more levels and departments.

Often, it would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the past. It is still, however, relevant in former Soviet Republics and China, as well as in most governmental organizations all over the world. Shell Group used to represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of command and duplicate service companies existing in different regions. All this, made Shell apprehensive to market changes ^[7], leading to its incapacity to grow and develop further. The failure of this structure became the main reason for the company restructuring into a matrix.

Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully developed the matrix structure supporting their focused strategy. Its design combines functional and product based divisions, with employees reporting to two heads ^[8]. Creating a team spirit, the company empowers employees to make their own decisions and train them to develop both hard and soft skills. That makes Starbucks one of the best at customer service.

Some experts also mention the multinational design ^[9], common in global companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This structure can be seen as a complex form of the matrix, as it maintains coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.

In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization, competition and more demanding customers, the structure of many companies has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual. ^[10]

[edit] Team

One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team. In small businesses, the team structure can define the entire organization ^[11]. Every one of Whole Foods Market' stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed teams, while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team. Larger bureaucratic organisations can benefit from the flexibility of teams as well. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively use teams to perform tasks.

[edit] Network

Another modern structure is network. While business giants risk becoming too clumsy to proact, act and react efficiently ^[12], the new network organisations contract out any business function, that can be done better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network structures spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external relations, usually by electronic means. H&M's is outsourcing its clothing to a network of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M can be more flexible than many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy^[13].

[edit] Boundaryless structure

The most radical concept in today's organisational design is the concept of 'boundarylessness', which seeks to overcome traditional boundaries between layers of management (vertical), functional areas (horizontal), as well as geographic boundaries. Some claim the boundaryless structure is a combination of team and network structures, with the addition of temporariness ^[14]. Ikea, the world's largest furniture manufacture, has been successful in implementing the boundaryless structure.The company works closely with suppliers by providing technical assistance, leasing them equipment, and giving advice. It also refined the role of the customer, putting responsibility on them to cart the furniture home and assemble it themselves. As a result, the company can offer lower prices ^[15], which supports its low-cost focused strategy.

[edit] Virtual

A special form of boundaryless organisation is virtual. It works in a network of external alliances, using the Internet. This means while the core of the organisation can be small but still the company can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According to Anderson, because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many niche products that collectively they make a significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful ^[16].

As we can see, organizations develop, modify and change their structures so that they align with their strategies. And the main trend for the last decades seems to be coming back to flatter structures. Although this structure seems suitable for small companies only, large organizations can take elements of it in harder times. Being at risk of losing profits or even going bankrupt due to the major financial downturn today, a lot of companies are moving to flatter structures ^[17]. Not only are they unable to maintain multiple management levels any more, they are also in need of a more flexible structure to cope with new threats.

[edit] See Also

• Management
• Management consulting
• Leadership
• Team building
• Cross-functional team
• Group development
• Maslow's hierarchy of needs
• Parent company
• Company
• Organizational culture
• Organization development
• Value network
• Corporation

[edit] References