Organizational structure is the manner in which the tasks of the employees are divided, coordinated or grouped to ensure the smooth running and functionality of the institution by providing an environment that the members of staff feel comfortable to achieve the set goals and objectives. This is in relation to the vision and mission statement of the company or workplace. The organizational structures are either categorized into a traditional hierarchical organization or high execution organizations. Different institutions change their organizational structures for various reasons. The reasons vary from trying to keep up with the changing organizational changes, developing a competitive edge over the others to simply keep up with the changing market trends. There are several aspects that the organisation can use to incorporate into their daily activities. These include; having mergers with other institutions, advancing the technological status, restructuring the companies’ policies and processes, the constant changing consumer demands as well as a shift in the types of products being delivered constitute the current business world. Changes that occur in the institution can either be internal or external factors.
Organisations change their structure in order to achieve the objectives that the company may have put up with over a period of time. This is usually spearheaded by a need to change from an entrepreneurial orientated business to one that is already established with set goals that are planned, stable and well organised. Thus, the requisite to divert from the initial cycle the business had intended. In additional, change can be as a result of a need to focus on new market niches, keeping up to date with the advancement in the technology or the stiff competition while concentrating on the change in the demands the customers may have in mind. The change should be due to a proactive initiative, but not as a last resort tactic to be on the defensive as it will lead to the management being ineffective in its course of action. Analysing and evaluating the weaknesses as well as strengths is an excellent guide to determining the path that the institution should follow. Moreover, internal attributes such as the need to raise a better additional capital or tackle obsolete and incompetent operational practices and procedures.
The organisational structure is divided into different types. The variations include structure by function, product, an area, a project, and hierarchical and flat organisational structures. According to Rosabeth, her focus was not only intended for the business market, but also the academicians who strived to explore several ways in which they could improve the relations at the business organization’s workplace. Her goal was to determine the impact as well as the change that potential value could be implemented in the altering policy and individuals. This is because whenever the employees felt as though their efforts were being stifled or constrained, then their maximum productivity potential could not be attained. Therefore, change is necessary to ensure that the policy of the company accommodated each and every one without limiting their efforts to a particular standard (Puffer, 2004).
She outlines that helplessness degrades, the absence of prospect demoralizes, and being too distinctive from the rest and not acknowledged diverts the devotion of the group. Moreover, when the executive group or the decision-making group at the top is of a similar mindset to maintain the culture and traditions of the organisation, then the chance of the institution to pave way for innovation and entrepreneurial opportunities will be deterred. Opening up the system will create equity as the employees will communicate more efficiently concerning the areas that they wish to be improved. In return, the workforce will become more cooperative as a goal orientated company is instigated. Therefore, the change will influence the rest of the community both economically and socially.
Discrimination is a factor that has affected the employees, especially women. Structural change that incorporated more women in their systems and leadership chances showcased an improvement in the productivity of the company. Most of the ancient companies did not encourage or even allow more women to hold more positions at the head offices. This is because; they believed that women should be at the homes dealing with domestic issues and not in the corporate world. In addition, the structure had limited women in the employment market. In case the women were employed then they either had to be single, or have small families to take care of.
Furthermore, the recognition of the impact that the work had to the employee and the family pressure that this employee had need to be acknowledged. Whenever the employee calls in with the explanation of ailment or addressing a problem, it necessarily does not mean that the particular individual is the one ailing. To add to that, the employers need to recognize, the society and the employment opportunities cannot entirely be separated. Instead, the community will forever impact on the estimated or targeted productivity of the establishment.
Some of the effects include raised employee morale. This is because they depend mostly on the organizational structure that is strongly built. They feel inspired and devoted when they are handled with admiration, confronted by their work effort and have chances for possible opportunities to advance. Unfortunately, it can also have a negative bearing just as the positive influence. If the department heads are continually rewarded with bonuses and salary increment at a constant period while the junior’s salaries are not affected in any way with a raise, then their motivation dwindles eventually. Also, the organisational structure determines the manner in which the discipline, incentives and promotion chances are outlined. Hence, the structure has a significant role to play in the condition. (Wang & Ahmed, 2003)
The manner in which the different departments and employees interact with each other is affected by the structure of the institution. In a system that is bureaucratic, the staff will find it difficult to request for particular information or expert to address a task that has arisen. On the other hand, an arrangement that is too laid-back can model into an elusive succession of command. Thereby, they will not have an idea of whom to report to at the end of the day. Establishing a flexible system with a well-outlined leadership sequence is important.
Efficiency in the association refers to the measure of work important to achieve execution objectives. If it is structured correctly, then the productivity will be prompt, useful with little wastage of resources. A Poorly managed organisation will lead to the various departments and individual not functioning to their full potential. For instance, if a staff member needs to go through several stages to seek approval for any project they want to undertake, then the responsibility and duties that were assigned to them will slow down.
The behavior of the institution in a varied manner is affected by the different design and models that the management will decide to use. For instance, job specialization can be attributed to increased productivity. This is because; the staff will spend more time working on a particular concept acquiring expert knowledge on the same. They will increase the productivity since they will know best, on the course of action to take in case of a task presented to them. Unfortunately, it can lead to reduced job satisfaction. The employees will have limited exposure to the varied responsibilities through which they can tackle. The staff members feel as though they cannot reach their full potential when job specialization is encouraged. (Buhler, 2011)
In conclusion, it is not possible to generalize that a particular structure is suitable than the other. The different structure intertwine at various instances, thereby yielding better results. Furthermore, the organization designs that the board will decide on implementing will be based on the effect that the employees will have and the foreseen impact.
References
Buhler P.M. (2011). Changing organisation structures and the impact on managers. supervisors72[2]24-26.
Puffer, S. (2004). Changing organisation structure: an interview with Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Academy of Management Executives.
Wang, C., & Ahmed, P. (2003). structure andstructural dimensions for knowledge-based organizations.
