Introduction
The skeleton of any organization is the organizational structure. Ideally, organizations’ structures delineate their parameters. In particular, the structures define the departments as well as activities, which make up the functioning of the organizations. These activities include supervision, task distribution, and coordination. The organizational structures that have clearly defined scopes of authority, roles, and functions ensure that the individuals within the organization collaborate to attain the set goals and objectives. Notably, the structure of a given organization plays a crucial role in defining the interpersonal relationships, which ought to exist between people and work. The paper delves into the significance of the organizational structure and its probable impact on the workforces. Specifically, it elucidates the effects of an organization’s structure on its members. It also analyzes the behavioral implications of different organizational designs and explains why it is not possible to generalize and assert that a certain structure is better than others.
It is a fact that the structure of the organization can have significant effects on its members. The flexible organizational structures, for instance, the organic structure, which according to BusinessMate (2009), are characterized by decentralized decision-making, empower the members, making them feel appreciated. As a result, this facilitates the improvement in their creativity and performance. In particular, the members develop a positive attitude and enhance their creativity when they are empowered in making decisions within the organization. They feel that the management appreciates their efforts by involving them in decision-making and, as a consequence, this makes them more creative and increases their performance. Flexible organizational structures also help in raising the members’ motivation and self-respect by giving them the freedom to contribute to different areas within the organization. In essence, this helps them develop a positive attitude that, in turn, plays a major role in enhancing their performance. It is worth noting that the work specialization in the organizations that have mechanistic organizational structure increases creativity and performance among the members. However, the centralization, which characterizes the mechanistic organizational structure might have an adverse impact on members’ attitude.
The structures, which guarantee employee security also make them develop a positive attitude and improve their creativity and performance. In essence, the employees feel comfortable working in the organizations that have the structures that guarantee their security needs. The positive attitude makes the employees dedicate their efforts toward attaining the goals and objectives of the organization, and in the process, this enhances their creativity and overall performance. However, the employees’ attitude, creativity, and performance deteriorate if they work in the organizations that have structures, which do not guarantee their security needs. These employees are likely to develop a negative attitude toward the organization that, in turn, affects their creativity and performance negatively.
According to Puffer (2004), Rosabeth Moss Kanter advanced the assumption that organizational structure is the most important determinant of behavior within the organizations in her introduction to her book, “Men and Women of Corporation.” Organizational structure plays a significant role in creating the behavior of the members of the organization according to Kanter. Organizational structures shape the behavior of the members within a particular organization in different ways. It is essential to mention that the organizational structure can either constrain the members of the organization by controlling and limiting their behavior or give them much freedom in the way they carry out their tasks. The members of the organizations that have structures that are characterized by wide control spans as well as low formalization levels vary their behaviors more compared to the members of the organizations that have structures, which are characterized by high formalization and specialization levels.
Organizational designs have different behavioral implications. It is hard to generalize what will primarily work best for all the members of a particular organization. In other words, it is imperative not to generalize when connecting the organizational structure to the job satisfaction and performance of the members of a particular organization. Ideally, this is due to the fact that the members of the organizations are different. For instance, not all members prefer the flexibility as well as independence that the organic structure brings in the organizations such as virtual organizations and boundaryless organizations. A number of members feel highly satisfied and are very productive in the organizations that have a mechanistic structure/bureaucratic structure where the hierarchy of authority is clear, uncertainty is minimized, and tasks are standardized.
Notably, specialization is one of the areas where the organizational structure impacts the behavior and the performance of the employees. The organizational structure determines the extent of specialization of work in a given organization. The specialization of work in the organizations that have a bureaucratic/mechanistic structure leads to high employee productivity. However, most of the employees who work in these organizations are less satisfied with their jobs compared to those who work in the organizations that have organic structure. Ideally, this explains why the traditional organizations continue changing their organizational designs to designs that facilitate the coordination of tasks and working together among the employees. Buhler (2011) insists that the dynamic designs are rapidly replacing the traditional pyramid designs, which characterized firms for nearly a hundred years.
The other area where the organizational structure impacts the behavior, as well as the performance of the employees, is centralization. The organization’s structure significantly determines the extent of centralization. There is low centralization in the flat, horizontal organizations such as the hollow organization, modular organization, and virtual organizations that use the organic structure. High centralization occurs in the organizations that use the mechanistic structure. There is a robust link between job satisfaction and centralization. For instance, the employees of flat, horizontal organizations in which there is low centralization as mentioned are more satisfied with their jobs than their counterparts in the self-contained, traditional organizations where there is a high degree of centralization. The participative decision-making in the flat, horizontal organizations significantly increases job satisfaction among the employees.
Anand & Daft (2007) assert that the contingency approach maintains that the best organizational structure fits the needs of the organization for the condition at the time. The contemporary organizations are likely to change their structures depending on the changes in the environment in which they operate. In fact, Anand & Daft (2007) imply that the organizations that use top heavy bureaucratic pyramid structure cannot easily respond to the critical changes within the environment. The present-day organizations must change their structures regularly so as to respond to the contemporary uncertain environment successfully. Thus, it is hard to generalize and assert that a given structure is better than others. The structure that a given organization utilizes depends on the prevailing circumstances in the environment. Besides, the individual differences among the workforces explain why there is no structure, which is superior in terms of its impacts on its members.
References
Anand, N., & Daft, R. L. (2007). What is the Right Organization Design? Organizational Dynamics, 36(4), 329-344.
Buhler, P. M. (2011). Changing organizational structures and their impact on managers. Organizational Change, 72(2), 24-26.
BusinessMate. (2009). Mechanistic vs. Organic Organizational Structure (Contingency Theory). Retrieved from http://www.businessmate.org/Article.php?ArtikelId=44
Puffer, S. M. (2004). Changing organizational structures: An Interview with Rosabeth Moss Kanter. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 96-105.
