Introduction
An organizational structure comprises the activities like task allocation, management, and supervision that are essentially directed towards the accomplishment of the organizational aims. This means that this phenomenon is actually considered as a perspective or viewing glasses by which people see their organization as well as its environment. Therefore, organizational structure is how an organization arranges jobs and individuals so that the work can be performed diligently for goals achievement.
For a very small work group where face-to-face communication is common, formal structure may not be necessary. Nevertheless, in an organization that is large, the management has to make informed decisions about various tasks or delegation. As a result, procedures are normally established, which assign responsibilities for a number of functions (Puffer 2004). These decisions are the ones, which determine organizational structure.
Organizational structure usually affects the organizational action in 2 big ways. For one, it provides foundation on which the standard operating routines and procedures rest. On top of this, it really determines which people participate in the process of decision making, and therefore to what extent the views they have shape organization’s actions (Buhler 2011). In addition, an organizational structure can in fact have significant effects on the members. This essay therefore focuses on these effects and analyzes behavioral implications of different organizational designs.
The literature on theory of organizations has comprehensively studied how organizational structure affects behaviors of members of organizations. Nonetheless, there is little empirical evidence on the part of organizational structure that matters as well as its chief channel of influence. Two alternative intuitions exist where on one hand, the main differentiating effect is essentially provided by vertical chain of control. Alternatively, it is degree of diverse specialists among members that matters mostly.
Trained and qualified workers are among the most essential assets, which organizations and companies have to accomplish their task and goals and eventually have largest impact on failure or success of an organization. Organizational design or structure of any organization has a direct influence or effects on how its members coordinate, make decisions, communicate, and also how productive these members are (Jacobides 2000). In addition, organizational structure may lead to the employees’ mental health problems such as anxiety and depression. Thus, it is crucial for organizations to both analyze and evaluate influence or effect that their organizational designs have on the employees.
There are various organizational designs. These include the matrix structure, simple structure, bureaucracy, divisional structure, functional structures, boundaryless structure, virtual organization, mechanistic design, and organic design. These organizational designs have different behavioral implications. All these organizational designs as mentioned have substantial effects on the members. These effects will depend on the organizational culture (McNamara 2000).
Matrix organizational structure is the one whereby employees are grouped by both product and function. It is worth noting that this structure can essentially combine best of two separate structures. Therefore, under this structure, an organization combines two or more dissimilar structures. The functional departmentalization is usually combined with the product groups (Anand and Daft 2007). The advantage of this design is that it enables use of highly specialized equipment and staff. Therefore, this organizational design affects the employee behaviors. It can either improve their job satisfaction and trust hence increase the overall production or negatively affect them and reduce production.
A balanced/functional matrix design will improve its members trust and job satisfaction as power is actually shared equally between the functional managers and the project manager. Thus, it will raise the morale of its senior and junior members hence they will be satisfied with their jobs and also have trust in whatever they are doing. This will therefore make an organization successful in its endeavors (Jacobides 2000). For instance, companies like Citibank, Texas Instruments, and Shell oil turned to this organizational design as an alternative to pyramidal functional design, and in reality have been successful due to the improved trust and job satisfaction that matrix design comes with. However, this design might reduce the cooperation among its members hence this will make m lose trust and negatively affect their job satisfaction. This may result from unclear communication channels that negatively affect employees’ behaviors.
In functional organizational design, employees within various functional divisions in an organization perform specialized tasks. A functional structure is thus best suited for the producers of standardized services and goods. This design leads to the operational efficiencies within a given group (McNamara 2000). Thus, this will improve the members’ attitudes and motivations hence lead to better behaviors among them and completely improve employee admiration. Some institution improves this further by employing the cross-functional organizational design. A good example of a company that uses this design is Google. The key reason for its employee admiration is its cross-functional organizational structure that it maintains through innovative management techniques and stellar leadership. However, this design might affect members’ communication as in some cases there is lack of proper communication between functional groups in an organization.
In the bureaucracy organization design, the highly routine operating tasks are essentially achieved through highly formalized rules and regulations, specialization, centralized authority, tasks which are grouped into the functional departments, decision making which follows chain of command, and narrow control span. This organizational design will thus have some implications on the behaviors of employees. For instance, it will affect how these employees coordinate, make decisions, communicate, and also how productive they are in an organization. It will make them behave ethically and work extra hard as promotions in an organization are based on performance and merit. Nevertheless, this design might negatively affect employee behaviors as rigid norms and rules will affect their happiness hence this might affect them psychologically leading to low production.
In simple organizational structure, authority is centralized in one person, the degree of departmentalization is low, there is extensive span of control, and little formalization. This design affects the motivations and performance of the employees in an organization. It creates an enabling environment where employees work together and as a result increase an organization’s productivity (Anand and Daft 2007). However, when an organization grows in size, this design may get overloaded with the information hence this may compromise effectiveness of organization’s members’ decision making.
I think it is not possible to generalize and say that a given structure is superior to others. This is because organizations are not homogenous and different structures fit in different organization. For instance, the structures that fit in the engineering sector are different from those that fit in hospitality sector. This means that different designs have different effects on members depending on the organizational culture. For that reason, there is no any structure, which we can say that it is superior in terms of the effects it has on the members.
References
Puffer, S. (2004). Changing organizational structures: An interview with Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2).
Buhler, P. M. (2011). Changing organizational structures and their impact on managers. Supervision, 72(2), 24-26.
McNamara, C. (2000). Organizational Culture. Adapted from the Fieldguide to Organizational Leadership and Supervision. Free Management Library. Retrieved from http://managementhelp.org/organizations/culture.htm
Anand, N. & Daft, R. L. (2007). What is the right organizational design? Organizational dynamics, 36, 329-344. Retrieved from http://faculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu/afgjp/PADM610/What is the Right Organization Design.pdf
Jacobides, M. G. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18, 3, 455-477.
