A hierarchical organizational structure is one with many layers of management and a considerably long chain of command. The communication period from top to bottom is unarguably long hence the top managers have lesser control. The narrow control span exposed an opportunity for effective organizational command. In contrast to this structure is the flat structure that has relatively fewer layers of management hence a shorter chain of command. Communications takes a very short period. This structure is the most suitable one for an organization that intends to create a highly motivated and empowered workforce (Griffin & Moorhead 2012). This becomes possible with the top-bottom reach ease for coaching and provision of advice. The tall organization structure is characterized by many levels of management that widen the gap between the top management and the operational employees. The image below provides a comparison between the tall and flat organizational structure:
Figure 1: Tall vs. Flat Organizational Structure
Source: Organizational Chart Website
Centralized organizational structure ensures that the head office maintains major responsibility with few or no functions devolved to the branches. Decentralized structure is an exact opposite of the centralized structure where organizational roles and functions are devolved to the branch offices. The figure below provides a contrast between the two organizational structures:
Figure 2: Centralized Vs. Decentralized Organizational Structures
Source: Phibetaiota Website
Power cultures refer to the type of organizational culture where control is an epic element. Everyone, other that the controllers, expect to be controlled. In contrast, the role culture ensures that the role of every employee is well defined. Employees have particular roles assigned to them, and the organizational function is split into various employee roles (Adler & Gundersen 2008). Unlike the two, the task culture is based on teams as opposed to individuals. The teams are assigned various tasks which they are expected to complete within pre-specified timelines. In the person culture, on the hand, the organization focuses on individuals or particular aims that are specific. This culture is mainly well evident in charity-orient organizations or not-for-profit making organizations.
Organizational culture and structure may have both positive and negative impact on the performance of the business. Organizations can use organizational culture and structure to develop organization brand. Organizational culture and structure can distinguish the organization from all other organizations. It is a positive impact in that it distinguishes the organization from the rest. Further, a good organization culture and structure defines the boundaries of the organization (Schermerhorn 2012). As such, everyone is aware of what to do and what not to do. The top management, therefore, does not need to make follow-ups on how well the employees are doing their duties since culture already dictates. A good organizational culture and an appropriate organizational structure create a conducive working environment for the employees.
Among the negative impacts of organizational culture and structure include the fact that it may lead to conflicts. This happens when employee’s values are not consistent with the organizational culture. This is especially so when the organization’s environment is highly dynamic as different employees (including the casual ones) have different cultural values and norms that are more likely to affect the organizational effectiveness.
Several factors influence individual behavior at work. These factors could be internal or external. They could be within the control of the employee or beyond their control. These factors range from abilities and skills, attitudes (anticipated outcomes), personality, perception, traits, understanding of self and others and self-efficacy. Each of these factors and how they affect the behavior of individuals has been discussed in the succeeding paragraph.
The abilities and skills of an individual influence their behavior at work in that individual who are highly competent, knowledgeable and skillful are more likely to perform better and portray higher levels of confidence than their semi-skilled or unskilled counterparts. Individuals with a positive attitude are more enthusiastic and actively involved in the achievement of the organizational goals and objectives than their counterparts with negative attitudes. Depending on the personality i.e. whether guardian, idealist or artisans amongst others, individuals behave differently. For instance, individuals who possess the idealist personality type enjoy working in teams and helping others in the team while their guardian counterparts dislike teamwork (French 2011). Employee’s perception of the organization may cause them to work hard to achieve personal as well as organizational goals while at the same time it may compel them not to. Character traits form an individual. It is ‘who an individual is’. Some people are hardworking, enthusiastic and active while others are the exact opposite. This creates the difference between their behaviors at work.
The democratic leadership style is the type of leadership where the leader involves his followers in decision making. Members of the top management put into consideration the decisions of the middle and operational employees. This leadership style enhances organizational effectiveness in that it reduced employee resistance to change and increases employee loyalty. This style is utilized in most Multinational Corporations including the Australian New Zealand (ANZ) Bank. The autocratic style, on the other hand, involves the style of leadership where the leaders do not involve his subordinates in decision making. Complete loyalty and unquestioned obedience are expected (Judge & Robbins 2009). This is mainly utilized by organizations that have employed the less literate such as the Monsanto in agriculture or the military. It is a less effective leadership style in all other sectors other than in the military.
In the free reign style of leadership, employees are left to make their decisions and to control themselves with the belief that they are competent and motivated. It is an effective style of leadership as it prevents resistance to change, increases employee loyalty and makes employees identify with the organization. The Telstra Company, in the telecommunications industry, utilizes this leadership style. The bureaucratic style of leadership, on the other hand, involves the development of the rules and regulations by the leader (Hiriyappa 2009). The employees follow such rules and regulations in conducting their jobs, and it becomes like a routine. It is a less effective style of leadership as it is likely to lead to the monotony of work and boredom. This style of leadership is highly prevalent in most government bodies, agencies, and ministries.
The Scientific theory focuses on the selection of the worker. The scientific selection of workers requires that workers are selected with their best practices in mind. Each worker should perform the role they know best. This is an important theory in management as it helps in the improvement of economic efficiency. Science is applied both in engineering processes and in management as well. According to the systems approach, management practices should be performed depending on how the organization functions which is a subsystem of a bigger system. The organization should be seen, during management, as a system within a system that has inputs and outputs. While this is so, the contingency approach identifies the prevailing situation of a particular organization as the dictator of the best activities to be performed. This is an important contribution to management practices as it cautions the managers and other leaders to put into consideration, all the prevailing conditions of the organization before taking any action. The bureaucratic approach provides that the leaders should develop certain rules and regulations which should govern the organization all through irrespective of the prevailing conditions.
Most of the state governments use the system approach to managing the state and territories. The state of Arkansas, for instance, has adopted the systems approach where the affairs of the state government are managed in such a manner that it is viewed as a subsystem of a bigger system (the federal government). The state receives inputs from the environment (funds from federal government and other sources) and transforms them into output (services rendered to the residents of Arkansas). The scientific management approach is mainly utilized in the construction industry where leaders perform the scientific selection of workers. Workers are assigned duties that they are leaders are aware they can perform well.
In the bureaucratic approach, managers develop certain rules and regulations that workers are expected to follow. This management approach is well evident in the world’s longest supply chain; Benetton Food Supplies Industry. The organization has certain rules and regulations developed by its leaders to govern all its food outlets across the globe. In the classical administration approach, managers adopt highly formalized structures with the clear administration of labor and authority to administrators (Griffin & Moorhead 2014). Leaders, in this case, develop certain principles and rules that guide them to more efficient administration of their organization. To identify whether or not certain organizations use this style of leadership, one can assess whether or not there are any changes after certain leaders have left the organization and others joined. Whether there is little or no change, it is likely that this is the style used for leaders in such organizations continue following the same rules. This leadership trait is used by the McDonald Foods multinational corporation.
In the free reign style of leadership, as it had been pointed out earlier, free will operates and the leader is just like any other consultant. This style of leadership is likely to cause employee motivation more than any other leadership style. According to two-factor theory, employee motivation is influenced by two main factors i.e. satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Employee recognition and appreciation are one of the satisfiers or motivators. As such, recognizing the competence of the employees and allowing them to make and follow their independent decisions is a motivator or satisfier. The democratic style of leadership involves leaders consulting their subordinates before settling on certain decisions. This style of leadership is also likely to motivate the employees especially category ‘Y’ in theory ‘X’ and ‘Y’ who like doing work. It may, however, demotivate employees who fall in category ‘X’ as they dislike work and would rather be directed instead of being asked to make decisions. The democratic and free reign styles of leadership boost the self-esteem of the employees which is an important motivation element according to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Miner 2006). In the dictatorial style of leadership, the leader makes decisions without consulting the subordinates and expects total obedience from them. This is demotivating to most of the employees but motivating to employees who dislike work as described by theory ‘X’ and ‘Y’. The bureaucratic style of leadership is less motivating to most employees as it is monotonous and leads to boredom due to the rules and regulations that have to be followed as a routine.
Before their application, it is important to discuss Abraham Maslow's theory. According to Maslow, Motivation happens in a hierarchical form, and certain needs must be satisfied before others if at all individuals are to be motivated. Maslow arranged the needs from the most prioritized to the least prioritized as follows: basic needs, security needs, affiliation needs, ego needs and self-actualization. The hierarchy appears as shown in the diagram below:
Figure 3: Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Source: Studyob.com
This implies that if individuals are to be satisfied, one must satisfy their basic needs before their ego needs or self-esteem. Having pointed this out, when using the Abraham Maslow’s theory to motivate the operational level employees, leaders must conduct a preliminary analysis to assess their needs. Most of the operational level employees are at the second stage of needs satisfaction i.e. security or safety needs. The managers must, therefore, assure them job security (Adler & Gundersen 2008). They need to be assured both orally and by actions that they are not likely to lose their jobs any soon. Further, most operational employees seek to belong, social; affiliation and love need. It is, therefore, important that the organization encourages them to work in teams. When applying the same theory to top management level employees, the management should recognize the fact that most of these employees have already satisfied their basic, security and affiliation needs. They seek self-esteem and self-actualization. The best way to motivate them, therefore, is to accord them with considerable fringe benefits that make them stand-out of the cloud.
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is important to managers as it helps them distinguish between the motivation elements and tools that they should use to certain employees and not to others. The theory makes them well aware of the needs satisfaction procedure to follow. The ERG motivation theory by Adelfer is important as it helps the managers to recognize that as much as the needs are arranged in a certain hierarchy by Maslow, they may vary from one person to the other. The managers are, therefore, compelled to study their employees closely before settling on certain motivation tools. The two-factor theory makes an important contribution when managers make motivation decisions as it identifies the factors they should use when they seek to motivate (satisfiers) the employees as well as those they should avoid (dissatisfiers). Further, Victor Vroom's expectancy theory reinforces rewards as an important factor in employee motivation. It, therefore, encourages managers and employees to not only consider making reward promises but also consider ensuring that such rewards are valuable in the eyes of the employees and that they are certain to achieve them.
Groups encompass a formation of two or more individuals who come interact to share their goals, aspirations and consider themselves as one. In assessing the nature of groups, any formation that perceives itself as a group or intends to be perceived as a group must have a common objective, individuals in the group must interact, and it must be projective. The common group behavior is that individuals in the group share common goals, interact more frequently than not, regard themselves as members of the group and are identified by others as belonging to the group (French 2011). In addition to the above elements, it is common for individuals to perceive their groups as rewarding, not only to the group in particular but the individuals themselves. Organizations make considerable efforts to ensure that groups are formed to (or "intending to") increasing the organization's productivity hence profitability. Further, groups make major contributions in decision-making processes. They are a major element of employee involvement and engagement in decision making, and they form an important part in preventing employee resistance to change.
When it comes to evaluation, the organization uses groups to avoid perceived personal attacks by evaluating a whole department rather than an individual. Among the different types of group, behavior includes group synergy. In group synergy, members form such groups with the idea that two heads are better than one. The aim is, therefore, to come up with better ideas than a single individual could have developed singularly. The behavior of such groups is geared towards producing better results than single individuals. The second type of group behavior is support and commitment. As such, individual’s behavior is geared towards supporting members of the group to produce better work than they would have produced individually. Finally, group behavior may also be geared towards satisfying interpersonal needs. This type of behavior is more evident in cooperatives where inclusion and control is a key satisfactions element.
One the major factors that can promote or inhibit the development of effective teamwork in organizations is the supportiveness of sponsors. Many are the instances where sponsors are well knowledgeable and have the capacity to help the group grow. If they are fully supportive, effective teamwork will be developed, and the reverse is also true. Stakeholders refer to individuals who have a stake in the team. Focusing on them and their operations is a major step towards effective team operations (Judge & Robbins 2009). SMART goals promote the development of effective teamwork in that every team member works towards their achievement. The mnemonic SMART, in this case, has been used to imply specific, measurable, accurate, realistic and timely. Mutual trust is an additional factor that that is important towards the success of any team. Members of a team must learn to believe in each other. Other factors that may inhibit or promote the development of effective teamwork in organizations include engaged leadership team members, collaborates to set directions and solve problems, obtain individual commitments and establish the discipline of personal accountability.
It is unarguable that technology has major positive and negative impacts on the functioning of the team in any given organization. Among the positive impacts include the software that connects members of a particular team. This software includes the Material Resource Planning (MRP) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) where members do not have to move from one point to the other to share information (Hiriyappa 2009). Video conferencing is an additional positive impact on groups where members do not have to meet physically but can meet via the internet through video calls.
The negative impacts of technology on the functioning of the team include the fact that members make rare face to face meetings. Where face to face meeting are rare, a considerable extent of connection and affection for the groups may be lost. Further, team members find it monotonous and boring to move documents and items that require physical contacts. In simpler terms, to a considerable extent, technology has made most group members physically lazy. The groups are also losing the real meaning.
Reference List
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Mason, Ohio, Thomson/South-Western.
French, R. (2011). Organizational behavior. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2012). Organizational behavior: managing people and organizations. Mason, OH, South-Western/Cengage Learning.
Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2014). Organizational behavior. Mason, Ohio: South-Western; Andover: Cengage Learning.
Hiriyappa, B. (2009). Organizational behavior. New Delhi, New Age International Publishers.
Judge, T. A., & Robbins, S. P. (2009). Organizational Behavior. London, Pearson.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2012). Organizational behavior. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley.
