Sunday, February 24, 2019

Flat organization Group Essay

organizational social organisations developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical world-beater social systems to industrial structures and todays post-industrial structures. The typical hierarchical arrangement for lines of authorities, communications, rights and duties of an organization. formational structure determines how the roles, proponent and responsibilities are assigned, run acrossled, and coordinated, and how information flows between the different levels of management. A structure depends on the organizations objectives and strategy.In a centralized structure, the top spirit level of management has most of the decision making power and has tight prevail over de dispelments and divisions. In a decentralized structure, the decision making power is distributed and the departments and divisions may have different degrees of independence. A company such as Proctor & Gamble that sells multiple prod ucts may organize their structure so that groups are divided according to each product and depending on geographical area as well.The Importance of arrangement StructureA bend of writers have pointed out the importance of an organizations structure and the blood between it and an organizations size, strategy, technology, environment and culture. Mintzberg (1989) has written extensively and significantly on the importance of organizational structure. Miller (1989) has explored the importance of configurations of strategy and structure. destroy and Stalker (1961) concluded that if an organization is to achieve maximum performance accordingly its structure must fit with or match the rate of remove in its environments. Handy (1990, 1993) has discussed the importance of culture in relation to organizational name and structure and the need for new organizational forms.Pascale, Milleman and Gioja (2000, p.197) consider be after is the invisible hand that brings organizations to life and life to organizations. Further, organizational structure and target are closely entwined (Mabey, Salaman & layer, 2001) with many a(prenominal) an(prenominal) aspects of humans resource management. consequently structure has a key role in the each(prenominal) important human dimension of an organization.Too often the importance of establishment structure is lose and Miller (1989) points to a gap in the literature whereby the content of bodily or business strategies has not been widely considered in relation to structure. unity of the most important aspects of a managers role is the rule of organisational structures, yet this is often a neglected responsibility (Senge, 1994). McMaster (1996) argues that Organizational image is not well understood and traditional management procreation does not include the development of any understanding of the principles of corporate design. The adjoin of the floury of corporate restructures that took place in the 1980s and 19 90s, discussed later in this paper, supports this view. I would suggest that this lack of genuine understanding is a safe shortcoming.Definition of StructureMullins (1993) and Mabey, Salaman & Storey (2001) describe the structure of an Organization as the pattern of relationships between roles in an Organization and its different parts. They see the economic consumption of this structure as serving to allocate feat and responsibilities in drift to direct activities and achieve the Organizations goals. Structure enables managers to plan, direct, organize and control the activities of the organization (Mullins, 1993, Mabey, Salaman & Storey, 2001). Here is a traditional view of Organizational design that uses principles derived from classical and scientific Management.A non traditional approach is taken by Pascale, Milleman and Gioja (2000, p.197). They consider the role of architects and the principles they use to create buildings that deliver the goods (1) structural lawfulnes s (sound buildings), (2) functionality (space appropriate for its intended use), and (3) aesthetic appeal. Using these principles an architect is able to bestow with the client in order to create a structure that is an inbuilt and facilitating aspect of the life of the people who move in and around it. Thus architectural approaches can rack uper us a good seat with which to consider Organization design principles.I would define an Organizations structure as the architecture both visible and invisible which connects and weaves unitedly all aspects of an Organizations activities so that it functions as a know dynamic entity. One simple approach is to consider how an Organizations structure is described when re testifyed diagrammatically, which most is often shown in the Organization chart. This provides useful insights into the underlying design principles. It will not show slack structures, but this is not the focus of this paper, except where they are an integral part of the design, as in for example, design Principles derived from complexity.The 20th Century handed-down elbow roomHenri Fayol is credited by many as being the founder of advanced management scheme and practice. Writing at the beginning of the 20th century he advocated an Organization structure that was centralized, functionally specialized and hierarchical, in which everything had its particularised place. Management was viewed as being all about planning, organizing, forecasting, co-coordinating and controlling.Others built on Fayols work, which Morgan (1986) claims provided the foundation of management theory in the first half(a) of the detain century, and which is still much in use up to the present day. Also in the early 20th century Frederick Taylor drawing on his understanding of traditional science and scientific method devised a theory of management scientific management. He advocated the use of scientific methods of measurement and abbreviation and broke all tasks down into small repetitive components. This was considered the most effective way of operating a production process and his methods achieved their apogee in the Ford motor car production line process.Thus the staple fibre structure of many large Organizations in the 20th century was founded on linear, segmented, hierarchical design principles as typified by Figure 1. The larger the Organization the larger the structure and the much sub divisions. It was an approach to Organization design that reflected the classical scientific worldview as did the early management theoristsFigure 1. Traditional Organization Chart / StructureDuring the mid 20th century thither was a ignore for Organizations to create huge corporate structures, often represent of many varied and different businesses, for example, the Hanson Trust, Trafalgar House, Unilever, and GKN in the UK and General voltaic in the USA (Mabey, Salaman & Storey, 2001). In the public sector too, huge bureaucracies were created with the communization of the public utilities after World War II and the creation of the NHS in 1948. The management of these huge Organizations required a complex multilayered structure with many sub divisions.Tall structures were created with as many as 20 accession levels between the chief Executive and the shopfloor operative. Managerial control of employees at all the Multiple levels was based on a mixture of direct want and budgetary Responsibility. Hierarchy, command and control were the governing principles of Employee management.But by the last decades of the 20th century, however, the trend for larger and larger structures was over. Almost every Organization experimented with more or less kind of structural deviate process (Ashkenas et al, 1995). Large conglomerates were downhearted up and large bureaucracies slimmed down as Organizations sought to become more effective and flexible (Mabey, Salaman & Storey, 2001). Companies merged and demerged, made acquisitions or sold them off and experimented with a range of approaches designed to make them more effective and reactive to a rapidly changing world. During this period Organizations were awash with notions of delayering, right / downsizing and business process re-engineering and for a time returns to shareholders were at record levels (Willis,2001). suppression was used by many companies as a way of adjusting their structures in order to be fitter and more effective. Large Organizations with many bureaucratic aspects like Kodak, IBM and General Motors restructured in this way (Mabey, Salaman & Storey, 2001). This and the often accompanying trend for outsourcing resulted in a wave of new problems particularly with employee insecurity and passage of expert knowledge. Coulson- Thomas and Coe (1991) report that in many of these slimmer Organizations there were issuesof work overload, increased work stress, lack of vision, poor decision making, corporate in fighting and so on.Further, this approach p roved to be an unsatisfactory one, not only because of the immediate social costs and the loss of experience and of import skills, but because many Organizations failed to capitalize on the restructuring and implement new confirming systems (Mabey, Salaman & Storey, 2001). They changed the structure of the Organization but not in such a way as to improve its overall long term effectiveness. This unvarnished lack of insight concerning the importance of the relationship between structure and inherent and external systems and human behaviours displays a restricted understanding of the principles of Organization design. commercial enterprise process re-engineering was another approach which many adopted during this period as an effective way of improving efficiency and removing bureaucratic structures. But, Mumford and Hendricks (1996) point out, many companies became obsessed with cost cutting and associated staffing reductions and did not consider how best to stir and restructure . Also some chief executives used the process to rid themselves of fumbling bureaucratic chains of command but failed to cede control Mabey, Salaman & Storey (2001, p.158) describe this period as one of apparent chaos as Organizations also tried out approaches based on networking, outsourcing and notions of virtual forms of Organization. However, they provide an analytical framework which I shall use to describe the different types of structure that still redominate. It offers four main types of structure bureaucracy, divisionalized structures, strategic business units and de-structured forms.Organizational 21st CenturyAt the end of the 20th century some less traditional forms of organization structure beganto emerge as prove by the de-structured forms described by Mabey, Salaman & Storey (2001). Handy (1990) observes that the old mechanistic systems are everywhere breaking down. Mabey, Salaman & Storey (2001) talk of the emergence of a new paradigm for organizational form which seeks to replace the rigidity and feckless nature of the traditional form. Ashkenas et al (1995) report on a change in design principles that amounts to a major shift.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.