Organizational Structure
Any organization that intends to succeed in achieving its goals and objectives must ensure that there is a proper organizational structure. An organizational culture is critical as it helps define acceptable behavior within an organization while establishing efficient working mechanisms. Unique Supplies (Wales) Limited has done a commendable job of making an effort to establish an organizational structure. However, it does not appear to be in congruence with its goals and objectives as evidenced by the drop in productivity and an unfriendly working environment.
An organizational structure is not only an instrument meant for the internal working of the company but also the organization’s relationship with the external environment such as its clientele and the surrounding community. In line with the above, it would be important to have a background look at the types of organizational structures and how Unique Supplies Limited fits into each one of them. Organizational structures can either be bureaucratic, divisional, functional or a mix of the three. A bureaucratic structure is anchored on bureaucracy that can be defined as an organizational structure founded on hierarchical authority which has laid down procedures meant to address reporting and monitoring functions of an organization.
Such a structure is aimed at effecting a well-choreographed level of coordination within an organization. Bureaucracy aims to offer a clear definition of the responsibilities of each of the employees while providing a proper hierarchical structure. The company illustrates this through the various levels of management (Adkins and Caldwell, 2004). However despite the efforts made by the management to impose a bureaucracy in the company, there are serious downsides in regard to the same. The responsibilities attached to each of the employees especially the junior staff are vague. As a result, more often than not, they are able to circumvent the laid down procedures and abscond their duties since such actions can be traced directly back to them.
If effectively used, bureaucracy could help speed up the decision making process in the company since a lesser number of people are required to approve major decisions as opposed to an organization without a bureaucratic structure. However, the benefits do not seem to permeate in the company as illustrated by the slow decision making process that often take days. It is closely linked to the structure’s inability to foster the culture of innovation and creativity due to its rigidity in terms of the rules and reporting structures. In fact, employees of the company that have exhibited any semblance of creativity in order to speed up the decision making process end up being punished for failure to stick to the laid down rules (Adkins and Caldwell, 2004). Consequently, the employees of the company lack the motivation to work.
While bureaucratic structures are important in an organization, the same should not be stretched too much to the extent that it weighs down on the employees’ psyche. While paperwork is important, it should not overburden the employees even for small tasks. This is especially the case for offsite operations. Such instances lead to a lack of motivation among the employees to perform critical tasks of the organization. As a testament to how the overburdening procedures undermined the company’s productivity and the employees’ morale, the workers found it difficult to attend to offsite duties despite the company paying generous allowances for such duties. It is because of the tedious paperwork required.
The other form of organizational structure is a functional structure. The structure seeks to instill a habit of coordination while focusing on the allocation of tasks. As the name suggests, employees are depending on the functions they ought to execute. However with the lack of properly defined responsibilities, it is difficult to implement any form of a functional structure. Without a precise definition of functions, it is difficult for the management to undertake any division of labor or provide any linkages to assist in coordination (Sopow, 2007). A functional structure would have been of particular importance to the company given that it is best suited for large organizations. The company has a large clientele stretching across huge elements of the Longhill county public sector.
Given the broad array of services the company ought to provide to its customers, it would also be important to make use of a divisional structure in the company. In such a structure, each division is usually assigned a specific function and all the resources required to undertake the assigned functions are availed. The company lacks such a structure. It is therefore no surprise that often customer calls are received with the same old feedback that such a task is not the responsibility of the employee. Within a divisional structure, it would be easier for the specific department to follow up on such a matter. Consequently, it improves coordination which ideally raises the level of productivity in organization.
The downside to such a structure is that it may lead to unproductive competition among the various departments. Furthermore, the distinct divisions would have to be manned by experienced and qualified managers who may be an expense to the company to hire and maintain. However, such increases in costs may not be as considerable when compared to the current situation in the company where the level of coordination among the existing managers is poor especially in handling employees and the overreliance on the rule book. Consequently, the drop in the company’s productivity costs far much more that the cost the company would have incurred in hiring qualified and experienced managers to head the divisions.
In light of the above, it is clear that there is no organizational structure that can act as a panacea in creating a solution for the company’s problems. It is therefore important to have a matrix structure that would merge the various structures in order to come up with one that is suitable for the company.
Organizational Culture
There is a positive co-relation between organizational structures and organizational culture (Hatch, 2006). It is therefore the case that the lack of a well-defined organizational structure for Unique Supplies Limited has negatively impacted on its culture. It is reflected in the employees’ attitude towards work and the company’s clients. Organizational culture has a direct impact on productivity. An organizational culture can be described as the sum total of the values and rites that serve to integrate distinct members within the organization. As a result, it represents an organization’s shared assumptions.
In order to have a detailed understanding of the organizational culture and how it relates to the company, it is important to have a background look at the different types of organizational cultures. One such type is based on Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory. He focuses on the importance of culture of the various employees within an organization. Hofstede presupposes that culture creates a predictable behavior among the employees. One such aspect of such a type of organizational culture is individualism versus collectivism. The aspect emphasizes that there is always some form of competition between the interests of an individual and those of the company (Papa, 2008). It is illustrated by disinteresting manner in which the employees deal with the customers as well as poor follow up of the company’s projects. Individual interests are also evidenced in the company in the way the employees are disinterested in its affairs to the extent that absenteeism is rampant in the company especially due to the employees’ ability to self-certify their sickness.
The other aspect in regard to Hofstede’s type of organizational structure is the power distance. Perceived power distances result in power inequality which is evidenced in the company in which some of the senior administrative officers’ rule with an iron fist. In one such case, one of the company’s senior officers reprimanded female technicians for engaging in a shouting match. While it is important to for managers to ensure that there is law and order, it is also important that it is done in well-structured and civil manner. Unfortunately, civility between the employees and the managers lacks in the company.
Another aspect of organizational culture according to Hofstede is the long term versus the short term orientation. Organizations with a short term orientation tend to uphold normative thinking that endears them to prefer the maintenance of the status quo. Organizations with long term orientation on the other hand tend to have positivistic thoughts that are more often than not geared towards seeking to do the right thing even if it upsets the status quo. It is organizations that embrace a long term orientation more often than not embrace change better. Unfortunately, the company’s culture is short term oriented. It is illustrated in the failed attempts to effect positive change in the company. Such efforts received a backlash from the employees who had become used to the old way of doing things.’
The other type of organizational culture is as defined by O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell. It focuses on a self reporting measure that helps to grade the level of organizational culture (Body, 2011). The rubric for this type of organizational culture is based on some elements such as team work, innovation, and creativity as well as respect and civility among the others. In this regard, the company performs poorly on that scale. In terms of team work, it is virtually non-existent in the company. In fact the employees were hell bent on frustrating the efforts of fellow employees. Even in the event of promotions, team work and productivity was never one of the basic requirements, it was rather based on the strict adherence of the laid down procedures. In terms of innovation, there is little or no reward for employees that seek change away from the normal situations. A case in point was the project file on the planned Charity fund day which had been deemed lost but had in fact purposefully destroyed by one of the employees. It was out of frustration that despite putting all the efforts to hasten the implementation of the project at hand, bureaucratic procedures hampered his creativity.
There is also a lack of respect in the organization which lowers its score in regard to organizational culture. There is no respect between employees of the same cadre as well as between managers and the junior employees as evidenced by the repeated cases of shouting matches. There is also a lack of respect on the employees when dealing with the company’s customers which is illustrated by the cavalier attitude in which they address their concerns. In fact, more often than not, employees would push off calls from concerned customers in the pretext that it was not their responsibility.
Solution
In order to address the problems that bedevil the company, it would be important that the company’s senior management address the organizational structure and culture. In addressing the organizational culture, it would important to have a look at the organizational behavior which is concerned with job related attitudes, leadership and the various roles played by the managers which will ultimately lead to the creation of a strong culture. A strong culture is one in which the employees respond positively to situations that the company faces. In order to achieve this, there is need for the senior management to create equal opportunities for all employees. The basis for creating such opportunities should be productivity and team work rather than strict adherence to the rules. Communication is an important aspect of passing on an organization’s culture in extension to its policies and vision.
Charles Handy describes four types of culture that need to be worked on if the general organizational culture is to improve. The first is the person culture. The senior management should strive to impart to all employees the idea that they are an integral part of the organization rather than being merely employees. The task culture emphasis the need to create a habit for team work to enable employees create solutions rather than looking at the tasks at hand individually. Power culture seeks to create a small web of power vested in experienced and qualified managers that can oversee the operations of the organization. Such a shift in the culture would be instrumental in reducing the level of bureaucracy in the company.
Such changes geared towards imparting a healthy organization culture would ultimately have a positive impact on the company’s organizational structure. As alluded to earlier, there is no one structure that can provide a blanket solution to the company’s problems. It is therefore important for the senior management to implement a matrix organizational structure. Such a move would lead to the creation of divisions tasked with specific functions overseen by a lean bureaucracy. In the end, having a healthy organizational culture would in the long run act as a tool for social control that would enable the employees distinguish between what is right and wrong.
Bibliography
Adkins, B. and Caldwell, D., 2004. Firm or subgroup culture: Where does fitting in matter
most? Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (8): 969–978
Barney, J. B., 1986. Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive
Advantage? Academy of Management Review 11 (3): 656–665.
Bligh, M. C., 2006. Surviving Post-merger 'Culture Clash': Can Cultural Leadership
Lessen the Casualties? Leadership 2: 395–426.
Boddy, C. R., 2011. Corporate Psychopaths: Organizational Destroyers. Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Filley, A.C. 1978. The Complete Manager: What Works When. Champaign, Research Press.
Hatch, M.J., 2006. Organization Theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives.
Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Luthans, F. and Doh J, P., 2015. International Management, Culture, Strategy and Behavior.
Newyork, Mc Graw Hill.
Jones, I., 2008. The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture. New
York: Encounter Books.
Luthans, F. and Doh J, P., 2015. International Management, Culture, Strategy and Behavior.
Newyork, Mc Graw Hill.
Papa, Michael J., 2008. Organizational Communication Perspectives and Trends. Newyork,
Sage Publications.
Perrow, C., 1986. Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Robbins, S. P., (2004) Organizational Behavior - Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 4th Ed.
Prentice Hall.
Richmond, L., 2000. Work as a Spiritual Practice: A Practical Buddhist Approach to Inner
Growth and Satisfaction on the Job. Newyork, Broadway.
Scott, W. Richard (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems
Perspectives. London, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Sopow, E., 2007. Corporate personality disorder. Lincoln NB: iUniverse.
